









% 









sit ^ "^iSl^: ^ • 



.* so - 






■> /^--X ** .-safe* / 



fc * ^ : jH^» : ^°<* ***liK ; * ^ -.11 



^ ^ & *+ • 






* ^ 












EXPOSITORY LECTURES 



ON THE 



PRINCIPAL PASSAGES OF THE SCRIPTURES 



WHICH RELATE TO THE 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



Br GEORGE W. BURNAP, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF BALTIMORE. 



BOSTON : 
JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY. 

1845. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 

James Munroe and Company, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 







BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY THURSTON, TORRY, AND CO., 

31 Devonshire Street. 



PREFACE. 



The object of the publication of the following lectures, 
is to give to individuals and families the means of explain- 
ing those passages of the Scriptures, which are most often 
quoted, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Such a 
book I believe to be wanted. There is no passage in the 
Bible, which expresses, or directly teaches this doctrine. 
This is explicitly acknowledged by the Catholic Church, 
the most numerous, and perhaps the most learned branch 
of the Church Universal. The most intelligent Catholics 
put it, with several other doctrines of their Church, on 
the ground of tradition. The Protestants, who have de- 
rived this tradition from the Catholics, and whose princi- 
ples forbid them to receive any thing upon the authority 
of tradition, have attempted to sustain it from the Scrip- 
tures. They do not say that there is any passage which 
expressly asserts it, but that there are many, from which 
it is legitimately inferred. It is the purpose of these 
lectures, to take up these passages, one by one, and show 
that this inference is not legitimate, that no such doctrine 
is taught in them, even by implication, that their true 
import has been mistaken. 



IV PREFACE. 

It is always objected to Unitarians, that they sustain 
their doctrines on the ground of reason alone. This cer- 
tainly amounts to the admission, that their doctrines are 
more consistent with reason than those to which they are 
opposed. This, to say the least, is a presumption in their 
favor. It is the object of these lectures to show that 
they have both reason and Scripture on their side. By 
the admission of all, the current language of the Bible 
teaches the strictest unity of God. Taking out a few 
passages, there is nothing else taught. So much is the 
Trinity a matter of inference, even from them, that it is 
said, and I believe justly, that there is not one of them, 
which has not been given up, as proving nothing to the 
point, by some one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine. 
Those texts admit, then, in the judgments of Trinitarians 
themselves, of another exposition, perfectly consistent with 
the Unitarian faith. It is the object of these lectures to 
show that this exposition is the true one, not by putting 
any forced construction upon language, but by taking 
into view all those considerations which go to show what 
the writer meant. 

As it happens, almost all those passages, which are 
quoted to prove the Trinity, have something in them 
which destroys the argument which is attempted to be 
drawn from them. The Unitarian perceives that it is not 
satisfactory, especially against the testimony of the great 
body of the Scriptures, but he is unable definitely to point 
out and develope the objection. He knows better what 



PREFACE. 



the text does not mean, than what it does. His general 
convictions are not shaken. The most that can ba said 
is, that his ignorance of sacred criticism makes certain 
texts perplexing, which, if he understood the whole sub- 
ject, would be perfectly plain. It is the purpose of these 
lectures to remove this perplexity, to point out those 
circumstances, in the texts alleged, which show not only 
that they do not teach the Trinity, but do teach some- 
thing else, perfectly consistent with the divine Unity. 

The reader will find in this book some repetition, ob- 
noxious perhaps to literary criticism. The same texts are 
repeated in different connexions. This could not have 
been avoided, without sacrificing fulness and strength of 
argument to literary symmetry. The same texts are found 
to have an important bearing on different points of the 
general argument. 

The concluding lecture was originally one of the course, 
but it introduces a subject somewhat foreign to the main 
purpose of the book, — the primitive organization of the 
church. It is printed in the course, on account of the 
illustration it contains of the meaning of the forms of 
baptism, and its relation to a subject at this moment deeply 
interesting to the public mind. 

BaltimorEj Oct. 1844. 



ERRATA. 

Page 18, line 12, for any thing- read every thing 1 . 

19, M 2, for classes read clauses. 

22, " 12, for possess read possesses. 

63, " 30, for persons read person. 

66, " 8, for just as Wisdom is &c. read just as Word is &c. 

110, " 27, for that is God, read that is, God. 

126, " 3, for churches read church. 

168, " 8, for communion read commission. 

172, " 9, for the doctrine of the second Person read the doctrine 
of the incarnation of the second Person. 

" " 25, for truths read truth. 

176, " 5, for or read and. 

233, " 20, for spirit-revealing- truth read spirit revealing truth. 

258, " 25, for abased for read absolved from. 

261, " 14, for and rams read of rams. 

266, " 15, for man read cross. 

292, " 15, for Mosaic ceremony read Mosaic economy. 

295, " 25, for then read there. 

305, " 15, for that the Christ read that Christ. 

" "26, for as well to the &c. read as well as to the &c. 

309, " 1, for denned read deified. 



CONTENTS 



LECTURE I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 



Page. 

Necessity of doctrinal discussion 2 

Religion a subject to be understood 6 

The Scriptures explicit upon the Unity of God .... 9 

Trinitarian worship impossible 12 

Form of benediction 13 

Form of baptism 17 

LECTURE II. 

TRINITY AND UNITY. 

Statement of the question 24 

Texts relating to the subject almost all Unitarian ... 23 

The exclamation of Thomas 31 

Exposition of Romans, ninth chapter 32 

The indwelling of the Father in Christ 33 

Worship of Christ 41 

LECTURE III. 

FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

Dr. Doddridge's exposition 45 

Objections to it 5A 

Christ being before John the Baptist explained ... 56 

John's Gospel illustrated by his Epistles 60 

The Word a personification 64 

God's attributes personified in the Old Testament . . . .66 



Vlll CONTENTS. 



LECTURE IV. 

PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

The Jews have always been Unitarians 70 

The doctrine of Moses on this subject 73 

Epithets, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, &c. ... 75 

Immanuel 80 

The " messenger " spoken of by Malachi . . - ■ . . . 86 

The " shepherd " spoken of by Zechariah . . . . . 92 

LECTURE V. 

FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

Trinitarian exposition . .95 

Insuperable difficulties of it 98 

True exposition ] 00 

Corroborated by the remainder of the Epistle . . . . 109 

God speaking on Sinai and Sion . 113 

Divine appearances in the Old Testament . . . . 115 

LECTURE VI. 

THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

Not generally understood 119 

General View of it . 120 

The first sentence overthrows the Trinity 130 

So do the Messages of the Church 132 

In what sense Christ is worshipped 136 

The Angel sent by God and Jesus 139 

LECTURE VII. 

INCARNATION. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity depends upon it 145 

Examined by Facts 147 

Indwelling of the Godhead 148 

Christ in the form of God 151 

In what sense Christ became poor .154 

God manifested in the flesh 155 

In what sense Christ came down from Heaven . . . .161 



CONTENTS. IX 
LECTURE VIII. 

GOD AND CHRIST. 

Their relations to each other 174 

The Mediatorship of Christ 176 

The Father the one and only God .180 

One God and one Lord 181 

The forms of benediction 184 

Christ the sent of God 188 

Christ at the right hand of God . . . . . .194 

LECTURE IX. 

THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

The two natures a supposition 193 

Proofs that Christ was a man 201 

Difficulties of the two natures ....... 204 

Jesus the Son of God 206 

What is meant by Christ's coming down from Heaven . . . 208 

Jesus the Judge of the World 213 

All things given to Christ 218 

LECTURE X. 

THE HOLT SPIRIT. 

Its personality and Deity antecedently improbable . . . 226 

Its personification by Christ ....... 330 

His own interpretation of his language ...... 333 

The Holy Spirit the essence of God . . . . . . 341 

The relations of Jesus to the Holy Spirit 343 

Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost 343 

LECTURE XI. 

THE ATONEMENT. 

In what Unitarians and Trinitarians agree 253 

Atonement has nothing to do with Christ's nature . . . 255 

The nature of sacrifices 263 

The resemblance of Christ's death to a sacrifice . . . 267 

No atonement without repentance 269 

To reform men was the purpose of Christ's death . . . 270 



X CONTENTS. 

LECTURE XII. 

SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

The nature of saving faith in Christ 272 

It is to believe in Christ's mission, not his Deity . . . 276 

What it is to believe in Jesus the Son of God .... 230 

What is proved by Christ's resurrection ..... 282 

What it is to believe in Christ as Mediator 286 

LECTURE XIII. 

ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

The greatness of Christ 289 

The Mosaic Theocracy 292 

Origin of the Messianic language 294 

In what sense Jesus adopted it 298 

Misinterpreted by the converts from Paganism .... 303 

Gradual formation of the doctrine of the Trinity . . . 306 

LECTURE XIV. 

BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

In what consisted the unity of the Church 311 

The meaning of the forms of Baptism 316 

Different officers in different churches 319 

The Christian Church copied the Synagogue .... 322 

Groundless pretensions of Episcopacy 326 

Origin of the Papacy 330 

W r hat unity of the Church is possible .... 332 



EXPOSITORY LECTURES. 



EXPOSITORY LECTURES. 



LECTURE I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 
1 PETER, III. 15. 

BE READY ALWAYS TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO EVERY ONE THAT ASKETH YOU 
A REASON OF THE HOPE THAT IS IN YOU, WITH MEEKNESS AND FEAR. 

It is now nine years since I gave a course of doc- 
trinal lectures in this church. It is my present purpose 
to give another of a similar kind, though on a some- 
what different plan. I do it from no love of contro- 
versy, nor because I am fond of bringing forward our 
peculiar views of Christian doctrine. If circumstances 
were different, I should forbear to do so. If our pecu- 
liar views were generally known and understood, — if 
they were fairly represented even, there would not be 
the same necessity. But as it is, they are both mis- 
conceived and misrepresented. There is scarcely a 
pulpit in the land, where the sentiments we cherish are 
not denounced and condemned, and that to people 
who have no means of knowing them, except these 
1 



& INTRODUCTORY. 

unfair and denunciatory statements. While this is the 
case, I hold it to be our duty, from time to time, pub- 
licly to state and defend our doctrines, to discuss can- 
didly, fairly, and fully the questions, which have been 
raised between us and other denominations of Chris- 
tians. We can conceive of no rational objection to 
this. We should imagine that all fair-minded men, 
who have often heard us censured, would gladly em- 
brace the opportunity of hearing our defence, that by 
knowing the arguments on both sides, they might have 
the means of making up their own judgments. Any 
unwillingness to do this, must arise either from a dis- 
trust of what they have already embraced as truth, or 
from the claim of infallibility. If a man feels a fear lest 
his opinions may be shaken, what is this but a confes- 
sion that he already suspects that they are unsound ? 
He is already a doubtef. Does he feel confident of 
his infallibility ? Who can claim infallibility in this 
imperfect state ? Who has so much light on any sub- 
ject, that he can receive no more ? " Prove all 
things," says the Apostle. " Hold fast that which is 
good." 

Periodical discussion of the great questions of relig- 
ion is needed by the rising generation. No one who 
has not carefully noted the quick succession of the 
periods of human life, has any idea of the rapidity with 
which an entire new race comes forward upon the 
stage. The whole generation now under nine years of 
age, were of course unborn when I delivered the last 
course of doctrinal lectures in this church. Those 
under that age, were too young to take any interest in 



INTRODUCTORY. 



the subject. As I do not make a practice of intro- 
ducing controverted subjects into the ordinary teachings 
of the sanctuary, all under eighteen years of age are at 
this moment destitute of any systematic instruction in 
the principles of their faith. Where shall they go to 
have them explained ? All books, all literature, is per- 
vaded by opposite sentiments and opinions. All 
preaching is diametrically opposed to it. All conver- 
sation, except in some limited circles, takes for granted 
that their principles are erroneous, dangerous, fatal. 
There is then no other way than for the religious 
teacher to indoctrinate the young as they come for- 
ward into life, to explain to them the Scriptures, and 
show them, that the doctrines in which they have been 
educated, are not the dogmas of authority, but the true 
meaning of the sacred word of God.^ 

Such a course, I believe, contributes greatly to the 
comfort and happiness of those who are taught, of all 
ages. Nothing is more painful than ignorance and 
doubt. A mind that is continually fluctuating in un- 
certainties, can never be satisfied, can never be at 
peace. It is just so in any worldly pursuit. The 
merchant, who goes into business without any regular 
training, immediately falls into the greatest and most 
painful perplexities. Emergencies undoubtedly occur, 
in which he does not know how to act. He is misera- 
ble and perplexed, and perhaps decides wrong at last. 
There are certain great and general principles which 
pervade the whole profession, and if he is ignorant of 
these, he cannot be otherwise than unhappy and un- 
successful. Just so with the mechanic. He must 



INTRODUCTORY. 



know the principles of his profession, or his whole 
enterprise will end in defeat. And is the great calling 
of the Christian life, less important than any earthly 
pursuit ? Here is the Bible, which contains between 
its two covers the whole science and the whole practice 
of religion, the highest object and end of man. And 
can any man be indifferent whether he understands it or 
not ? Can any man choose to wander on in doubt and 
uncertainty, when he has the means at hand of satisfy- 
ing himself ? I invite all then, but especially the 
young, to follow me in my proposed investigations, if 
from no higher motive, as an intellectual discipline. It 
is a great gain to learn to think and to reason conclu- 
sively. It is a great achievement of the human mind, 
to gain a clear understanding of one single subject. It 
lays the foundation for satisfactory investigation into 
every other. And what nobler subject can be pre- 
sented to the mind, than theology, that science in 
which centres, and from w 7 hich radiates, every other, — 
the investigation of the Great First Cause ? What are 
all sciences when compared with a knowledge of that 
Infinite Intellect, from which emanated all sciences ? 
The mind of man has been the subject of philosophical 
and most interesting inquiry from time immemorial. 
But what is it in comparison with the Eternal Mind ! 
The mechanism of the universe has attracted the curi- 
osity of thinking men in every age. But how much 
more exalted the knowledge of the Infinite Architect ! 
History attracts the attention of all men. But how much 
more worthy of study the Providence of Him who is 
more ancient than all history, and of whose dealings 



INTRODUCTORY. O 

with men, history itself is but a scanty and imperfect 
record ! Moral philosophy has ever been considered a 
refined and an ennobling pursuit. But the very facul- 
ties in man, which make him a subject of moral study, 
can come from no other source, than the same attri- 
butes as they exist in God, in whose image man was 
made. Society, life, is an entertaining study. We love 
to hear the causes of individual happiness or misery, 
success or defeat. Yet at the very moment we are 
gaining the deepest insight into human affairs, we 
are only tracing the footsteps of a present Deity. 
The study of religion then, merely as a study, is the 
most interesting that ever engaged the mind of man. 
I invite, therefore, all inquisitive minds to follow me in 
the succeeding discussion. They will certainly gain 
some knowledge of a subject which will ever engage 
the attention of man, while the world stands ; will be 
a subject of conversation, wherever men think, and 
reason, and hold communion one with another. 

But I fancy, I hear some one object that religion is 
a mysterious subject, which cannot be understood, and, 
moreover, was never intended to be understood. It 
is therefore to be taken upon authority, without exam- 
ination. Let us examine this objection more closely. 
Religion, the objector acknowledges, has been made 
the subject of a revelation. But if it cannot be un- 
derstood, now it is revealed, then one of two things 
follows, either that God undertook to do a thing, which 
cannot be done, or that he did it in such a way as not 
to answer his purpose. What is an unintelligible rev- 
elation, but a thing made known and not made known 
1* 



D INTRODUCTORY. 

at the same time ? You wish to reveal a secret to a 
friend, and you write to him in a language that he does 
not understand. Is that any revelation ? Will your 
friend know anything more about your secret than he 
did before ? So if your secret is of such a nature, 
that it cannot be communicated, do you not trifle with 
your friend, if you make the attempt, if you puzzle and 
confound him by reference to things, which he knows 
nothing about, and by language which he cannot com- 
prehend ? Every thing that God has revealed, must be 
intelligible and consistent. Every sentence in the 
Bible, therefore, has a meaning, and a meaning which 
is intelligible and consistent. The excuse then that 
religion is unintelligible has no force, and ought to keep 
no one back from a diligent study of the Bible. Our 
Saviour said in his last prayer with his disciples : 
u And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." 
In another place, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of 
heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from 
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
babes." Now can these two representations be true, 
and yet the knowledge of God and of Christ be such an 
unintelligible mystery ? Babes can know God and 
Christ, or those of the weakest understanding, and yet 
it is an unintelligible mystery ! To my mind it seems 
much more probable, that mankind have put mysteries 
into the Bible, and then complained that the Bible is 
so mysterious, that it cannot be understood. 

Another perhaps may say, that he does not feel in- 
terest enough in the subject to prompt him to investi- 
gate it carefully ; that he deems it all-sufficient to have 



INTRODUCTORY. 



a general idea of the doctrines of the Bible ; but to 
become acquainted with the peculiarities of contending 
sects, is a matter curious rather than useful. What a 
confession is this to make concerning the most impor- 
tant and interesting of all subjects ! No man can be 
serious in making such an objection. And why are 
you not interested ? Where have been your mind and 
thoughts, while you have listended to the thousands of 
sermons you have heard ? What has occupied the hun- 
dreds of sabbaths, whose leisure you have enjoyed ? 
For what purpose have you enjoyed those sabbaths 
and listened to those discourses, if it was not to become 
acquainted with all things pertaining to religion ? Books 
are multiplied with such facility, that they can be pro- 
cured by all. Why then have you not studied them ? 

I am willing to allow that the manner in which these 
things have been presented, has not promoted activity 
of mind, or thorough understanding. Nothing is more 
irksome and discouraging, I confess, than to listen to 
a discourse, which does not contain clear ideas. Noth- 
ing is calculated to produce greater vexation and disap- 
pointment, than to hear a subject pursued to a certain 
point, and then the discussion broken off, under the 
plea, that it is a mystery, and cannot be understood. 
And where is mystery to begin, and where is it to end? 
There is no ignorance and no negligence, which this 
plea may not be made to cover up. The inquirer may 
stop anywhere he pleases, and say that the rest is a 
mystery. J^ay, more, there is no doctrine that may 
not be introduced into Christianity under cover of 
mystery. It might be said that Jesus Christ, in the 



8 INTRODUCTORY. 

last supper, gave his disciples his own flesh and blood 
to eat and drink. In vain might it be urged against 
this assertion, that there was his own flesh and blood 
undiminished and unimpaired, and therefore it was im- 
possible in the nature of things, that the bread and 
wine could be his body and blood, and bread and wine 
at the same time. It might be answered, that it is so 
stated in the Bible, and how it could be so, is a mys- 
tery. If this plea is allowed, then there is no doctrine, 
which, by taking the literal sense of the Bible, cannot 
be introduced into religion. It might be asserted 
that Christ was literally a vine, a door, and a fountain, 
and that he was a shepherd, and kept sheep. 

Besides all this, the representation of religion as 
mysterious, produces the worst effects upon the intel- 
lectual character of those who are taught. It produces 
indolence, inattention, and despair of ever arriving at 
any clear conception of the subject. The mind, after 
listening awhile to such discussions, after grasping in 
vain for clear and consistent ideas, at length becomes 
fatigued and disgusted, and turns its meditation on some 
other subject, more plain and familiar, but foreign to 
the day and to the occasion ; just as a man will turn 
from a dark street, where he stumbles every step, into 
one that is clear and well lighted. 

But it is said, perhaps, that the Trinity and its kin- 
dred doctrines, are not practical subjects of discourse. 
It is a matter of mere speculation. A man may be as 
good a man, and as good a Christian, who believes in 
a tripersonal God, as if he believed in a God in one 
person. I answer, that it is not for me to say, what 



INTRODUCTORY. VJ 

truths are, and what are not, important ; or how im- 
portant any particular truth may be. That can be 
known only to God, who discerns the relation of all 
truth. It is enough for me to know that anything is 
true. I must embrace it on my allegiance to God. I 
must maintain it. It is a noble instinct of my nature 
to do so. It is an instinct equally noble and generous, 
for me to desire to impart the truth which I possess 
to others. 

But, if I may judge by the Scriptures, the unity of 
God is not only a truth, but an important truth. Jesus 
Christ has told us, that " the first of all the command- 
ments is, Hear, O Israel ! Jehovah our God, Jehovah 
is one." Moses represents God as saying, " Thou 
shalt have no other gods before me." It becomes us, 
I think, carefully to inquire into the meaning of the 
word u rae" in this commandment. u Me " is a per- 
sonal pronoun, in the singular number. Does it mean 
three persons in this case, and if so, why is it used 
instead of " us " ? If it mean one of three persons, 
which of the three persons does it mean ? In the 
former case, is the declaration u Jehovah is one," to 
be taken strictly of one mind, one intelligence, such as 
we are conscious of possessing in ourselves, or does 
it mean some other sort of unity, which is consistent 
with a tripersonal nature ? It seems to me most impor- 
tant to settle this point, as both Christ and Moses 
make it the foundation stone of religious faith. 

But not only is the Unity of God important, as the 
theoretic basis of religious truth, but in its practical 
bearings. Our Saviour has taught us to pray, saying, 



10 INTRODUCTORY. 

u Give us this day our daily bread," thereby intimating 
that we must pray daily. If we adopt the hypothesis 
of a tripersonal God, then a difficulty will be presented 
every day of our lives, how we are to pray. There 
are not only great intellectual perplexities presented in 
admitting into the mind the conception of a Being who 
is three and yet one, but the difficulties are but begun. 
As soon as you admit three Persons, each equally 
God, an important duty follows. Three persons are 
not only to be believed in, but worshipped, and wor- 
shipped equally, the one as much as the other. If you 
address them all as one God, without distinction of 
person, then all idea of a Trinity is lost, and becomes 
a dead letter. It is retained in the creed, and neglected 
in the prayer. The word, God, conveys to most minds 
the idea, not only of one Being, but one Person, as is 
proved by the singular personal pronouns, thee and 
thou, which always accompany it. Can any con- 
scientious man satisfy his own mind in the practical 
neglect of so important a truth, and believe in three 
Persons, and pray only to one ? 

The fact is, that to frame a prayer consistent with 
his creed, the Trinitarian must invent a new language, 
the words of which must have the power of expressing 
unity and plurality at the same time. Now, unfortu- 
nately, there is only one word in our language by which 
this can be done, and that word is Trinity ; a word, 
not of Scriptural origin, nor invented for many ages 
after the Scriptures were written. And then there are 
no other words in the language to correspond to this. 
All other words must address either one or many. And 



INTRODUCTORY. 1 1 

the difficulty is not verbal merely, but intellectual. 
You cannot in thought worship a Being who is three 
and yet one. While you think of the Unity, you 
must lose sight of the Trinity ; and when you think of 
the Trinity, you must lose sight of the Unity. 

The fact is, that a majority of Trinitarians do not 
attempt to pray according to their creed. Their prayers 
are essentially Unitarian. They address only one of 
the three persons, and that is the first, and make the 
term Father synonymous and coextensive with the 
word God. If they did pray according to their creed, 
the Lord's prayer itself would have to be altered. 
If that hypothesis be true, it is at present exceedingly 
deficient. They ought to take their pens and strike 
out of it, u Our Father who art in heaven," and insert, 
u Most holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three per- 
sons in one God," and then there w 7 ould be a difficulty 
whether to place the verb following in the singular 
or plural number, to agree with " Trinity," or u three 
Persons." 

Besides, worship is founded on certain relations of 
the person worshipping to the person worshipped. We 
worship God because He is our Creator. He is the 
Former of our bodies, and the Father of our spirits. 
Is creation a joint work of the three Persons ? Then 
we have three Creators, and we ought to worship three 
Creators. Is it the work of one of the Persons ? Then 
we ought to worship that one as our Creator. But if 
so, then the worship and glory of the other two must 
be, to the same extent, diminished and impaired. Does 
the Trinitarian worshipper regard himself as being 



12 INTRODUCTORY. 

looked upon by three omniscient Persons ? Does he 
carry this conception in his mind when he worships ? 
If not, he is a Trinitarian in words, but not a Trinita- 
rian in fact. If he conceives of one of the Persons 
as appropriating to himself any one of the functions of 
Deity, then the Divine honors of the others are just so 
far impaired. If a man really cherishes this belief, 
must not these practical difficulties be a great trouble to 
his conscience, and make him very anxious in the exact 
distribution of the homage due to the Divine Being, 
among the three persons of which he is composed ? And 
if he finds it impossible to make these distinctions, let 
him confess, what is the fact, that he is a Unitarian in 
reality, though a Trinitarian in words ; that his usual con- 
ception of God is of one Person, one Mind, one Spirit, 
"the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, and 
Lord of lords, who alone hath immortality, dwelling in 
light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen or can 
see, to whom be glory everlasting ; Amen and Amen." 
But not only is a tripersonal God embarrassing as an 
object of prayer, but equally embarrassing when made 
an object of thought. The consequence of this hy- 
pothesis is, that the idea of God, under the Trinitarian 
conception, is the most vague and shifting idea that 
can be presented to the human mind. It may be 
answered, that the idea of God itself is obscure. It is, 
but simply because it transcends human thought by its 
vastness, not because it is made so by intrinsic incon- 
sistencies and contradictions. Our knowledge of the 
human mind is imperfect ; but we are not troubled with 
any difficulties as to its unity. We have the clearest 



INTRODUCTORY. 13 

conception of its possessing one consciousness and one 
will. The very faculties which enable us to conceive 
of God at all, lead us to conceive of Him as possess- 
ing one consciousness and one will, as being, therefore, 
one Designer and one Agent. We cannot, even in 
thought, distribute this consciousness and this will 
among three Personalities, all existing at the same time. 
It is equally impossible for us to conceive of a Person 
without these inherent elements of personality, con- 
sciousness and will. There is no way then, in which 
we can conceive of God, under the Trinitarian view of 
him, without identifying him with one of the three Per- 
sons, and we cannot think of Him as being and doing 
what God ought to be and do, without tacitly consid- 
ering the other two Persons as quiescent, and, in fact, 
sinking them into nonentities. 

But in consequence of these vague ideas of the 
Divine Unity, passages of the Scriptures are alleged 
as proving the tripersonality of God, which not only 
have no such meaning, but, when carefully examined, 
are found to be altogether subversive of it. No text of 
the New Testament has been more frequently cited, 
perhaps, in proof of the Trinity, than the last verse of 
Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a ben- 
ediction. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the love of God, and the participation of the Holy 
Spirit, be with you all." Here, it is said, are*the three 
Persons of the Trinity, brought together, made equal, 
and more than this, made the objects of worship. 
But all appearance of intimating such a doctrine, is in- 
stantly dissipated by a consideration, which seems to 
2 



14 INTRODUCTORY. 

have been strangely overlooked. The second Person 
of this Trinity is God, the whole Deity, without any 
distinction of persons. " The love of God." God, 
the whole Deity, cannot be a Person of the Trinity. 
Had the expression been " the love of the Father," 
then there would have been something like a reason 
for considering this text as an argument for the Trinity. 
The Trinity here expressed, is not a Trinity in 
God, for God is here one of the three Persons. It is 
true, there are here three subjects of discourse, God, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Only 
one of these is God, by the very terms of the expres- 
sion, u the love of God." So far then from support- 
ing the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage contains a 
strong argument against it. Divinity is by implication 
denied to Christ, for he is spoken of in connexion with 
God, but as distinct from him. u The grace of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God." There is no 
intimation that these two persons are one being, or 
that they are both God, or constitute one God. One 
is God, in the most unlimited sense, comprehending 
the three persons, if the word God ever can be sup- 
posed to do so. The other is the Lord Jesus Christ, 
connected with God by the particle and, proving, if 
anything can prove, that the Lord Jesus Christ is out 
of the Deity, and not in it. 

In t\i9 last clause, the word " fellowship " serves to 
mystify this passage. In common language, this word 
is nearly synonymous with the word " companionship," 
and would seem to intimate that the Apostle wished 
the early Christians the companionship of the Holy 



INTRODUCTORY. 15 

Spirit. But the English word, which comes nearest 
to it, is ''participation." We have fellowship with a 
person, but participation in a thing. It is only by a 
figure of speech, that we can participate in a person. 
We participate in a thing without a figure. The mean- 
ing, therefore, evidently is, " May you be partakers of 
the Holy Spirit." 

The phrase " the Holy Spirit," so far from indica- 
ting a person, is in the original in the neuter gender, sig- 
nifying that it is not a person, but a thing. There are 
doubts then, suggested by the very language, not only 
whether the Holy Spirit be a Person of the Trinity, 
but whether it be a person at all. Those doubts are 
much strengthened, when we compare such parallel 
passages as these: u Ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost, not many days hence." The same wri- 
ter expresses the same meaning in another place ; 
u I send the promise of my Father upon you, — ye 
shall be endued with power from on high." To be 
baptized with a person, hardly makes sense. Besides, 
what is called " the Holy Ghost," in one passage, is 
evidently called u power from on high " in the other. 
Power from on high is evidently not a person. 

There is another passage, of a similar import, near 
the beginning of the Gospel according to Luke. 6C The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee." Here is evidently a 
Hebraism, the repetition of the same meaning in two 
different forms of words. u The power of the High- 
est " is only another phrase for " the Spirit of God," 
or " the Holy Ghost." There is another passage of 



16 INTRODUCTORY. 

a like construction in the Acts ; " How God anoint- 
ed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and 
with power." The Holy Ghost is here evidently 
synonymous with miraculous power. If there were any 
doubt upon that subject, it would be removed by com- 
paring these words of Peter with another passage from 
the same speaker, when the same thing is the subject of 
discourse. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words, 
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, 
by miracles, and signs, and wonders, which God did 
by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves do know. " 
What in the one case is called the u Holy Ghost " and 
" power," is in the other called u miracles, and won- 
ders, and signs." How far this is the representation 
of a person, I leave every one to judge for him- 
self. 

Whether the personality of the Spirit is sustained by 
the general language of the Scriptures, may be learned 
from such texts as these. "I will pour out of my 
Spirit." " Jesus, having received of the Father the 
promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed fort h this, which 
ye now see and hear." u They of the circumcision 
were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured 
out the Holy Ghost." 

These quotations, from different parts of the New 
Testament, will aid us in determining whether the 
y participation of the Holy Ghost," which the Apostle 
wishes that Christians may enjoy, is companionship 
with a person, or the participation in a thing. And if 
this latter view of things be correct, the Trinity spoken 
of in the Apostolic benediction, is not a Trinity of 



INTRODUCTORY. 17 

persons even ; one of the three subjects of discourse is a 
thing, and not a person. Such an analysis of this proof- 
text is sufficient to show us how exceeding vague men's 
ideas of the Divine Unity have become, under the 
influence of the Trinitarian system, and how prone men 
have become to offer and accept as demonstration, 
that which, when examined, turns out to be no argument 
at all. 

Another striking instance of the tendency of the hu- 
man mind, under the influence of theological systems, 
to draw broad conclusions from narrow premises, is the 
fact that so much has been made of the form of bap- 
tism in the Trinitarian controversy, " Baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." This form will be more particularly analyzed 
in the last lecture of the course. Here I notice it 
merely to point out the fallacy of the argument that is 
usually raised upon it. It is affirmed that each of these 
is a person, and each must be God, because Christians 
were baptized into the name of each. But let the 
advocate of the Trinity turn to the eighth chapter of 
Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and he will find that his 
argument proves too much, and will make Moses to be 
God, or a person of the Godhead. The same Apos- 
tle elsewhere says : 4C For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." This 
undoubtedly means Christian baptism. But does it 
prove that Christ was God, or a Person in God ? Let 
us examine. The same writer says of the Israelites, 
that they " were all baptized unto (literally into) Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." If the baptism of Chris- 
2* 



18 INTRODUCTORY. 

tians into Christ, proves him to be God, then the bap- 
tism of the Israelites into Moses, proves him to be 
God. And if it does not in the case of Moses, neither 
does it in the case of Christ. 

I go further, and say, that people might be baptized 
into things, as well as persons, and so the form of 
baptism will not even prove the Holy Ghost to be a 
person. Paul says, u Know ye not, that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
into his death." John the Baptist says, 4C I indeed 
baptize you with water unto (literally into) repentance." 
If anything into which men were baptized, were a per- 
son, then death and repentance are persons. And if 
men were baptized into things, as well as persons, then 
the occurrence of the phrase u Holy Ghost," in the form 
of baptism, does not prove it to have been a person. 
The argument, therefore, which is derived from the 
form of baptism, to prove both the Deity of Christ, 
and the personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost, falls 
to the ground. 

I have here adverted to the form of baptism, chiefly 
for the purpose of noticing the most unwarrantable 
inferences which have been drawn from it. Three 
articles of a creed, as I shall hereafter show, are 
transformed into three Persons of a Trinity. This 
inference has been expressed in a set form of devotion, 
and thousands and tens of thousands are made to pray 
every Sunday to three objects of worship, in a form 
totally unauthorized by the Scriptures ; " O God the 
Father, have mercy upon us ; O God the Son, have 
mercy upon us ; O God the Holy Ghost, have mercy 



INTRODUCTORY. 19 

upon us." Perhaps not one in a hundred is aware, that the 
second and third classes of this form, are altogether un- 
scriptural. There is nothing like them to be found, either 
in the Old or New Testament. They are nothing but 
uncertain inferences, exalted into positive dogmas, and 
incorporated into the most solemn worship. There is 
no such phrase in the Bible, as u God the Son," or 
M God the Holy Ghost." The nearest approach there 
is to "God the Son" is " the Son of God." Now 
there is not only a difference between " God the Son" 
and " the Son of God," but an infinite difference. 
il God the Son " must be God, but the Son of God 
cannot be God. Neither can " the Son of God" 
be a Person of the Trinity. God, when the word 
stands by itself, even according to the Trinitarian 
hypothesis, stands for the whole Trinity. The Son 
of God then, must be the Son of the whole Trinity. 
The Son of the whole Trinity cannot be a Person in 
the Trinity. Besides, no derived being can be God, 
and the word " Son," so far as it expresses any thing, 
expresses the idea, that the person, to whom it is 
applied, is a derived being, and of course cannot possess 
underived, independent and eternal existence. The 
very phrase then, " God the Son," is not only unscrip- 
tural, but a self-contradiction in its very structure. 
And yet Christians are heard to repeat this phraseology 
Sunday after Sunday, without reflecting either upon its 
origin or its import. 

The true meaning of the epithet, " Son of God," 
when applied to Jesus, may be learned from many parts 
of the New Testament. It was merely an equivalent 



20 INTRODUCTORY. 

expression to " Messiah," or u Christ." This is shown 
conclusively by comparing two parallel passages in 
John's first Epistle. 

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is 
born of God." 

" Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of 
God j God dwelleth in him, and he in God." 

According to these two texts, to believe that Jesus 
is " the Christ," is the same thing as to confess that he is 
u the Son of God." To be baptized into the name of 
u the Son," does not mean then, being baptized into a 
profession of belief in Jesus as a Person of the Trinity, 
or as u God the Son," but simply into a profession of 
belief in him as u the Christ," or u Messiah." 

The plan of the course of lectures in which I shall 
endeavour to engage your attention this winter, is purely 
expository and practical. I wish to engage you all in 
the study of the Bible. I wish to lead each one to 
investigate for himself, that his opinions may be no 
longer founded on the authority of any man, but on 
personal examination ; that, in the language of the 
Apostle, " we may be no more children, tossed to 
and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine." 
And the only way to study the Bible, is to bring 
together all the texts which relate to any subject, and 
compare them with each other. Unless we do this, 
we are liable to deduce from detached passages the 
most erroneous conclusions. The meaning of one text 
must be allowed to modify the meaning of another ; the 
great majority are to be taken as the rule, a small 
minority as the exception. That which is plain, must 



INTRODUCTORY. 21 

be suffered to throw light on that which is obscure, 
that which is literal, permitted to interpret that which is 
figurative. 

If the opposite course is adopted, if a small minority 
is taken as the rule, and the great majority made the 
exception, if what is dark is to give a meaning to what 
is plain, and make that dark too, if the figurative is to 
be made to interpret the literal, then the Scriptures 
will become a mass of contradictions, a collection of 
riddles, and their authority can be sustained only under 
cover of the plea of mystery. 

I intend to go through the whole Bible, and explain 
all the principal texts which relate to the unity or plu- 
rality of the Divine Nature. I shall compare the texts 
which are thought to prove the Unity, with those which 
are considered to prove the Trinity, as to number and 
conclusiveness. I shall then take up the principal pas- 
sages, one by one, which are quoted to prove the 
Trinity. I shall examine critically the seventh and 
ninth chapters of Isaiah, the first chapter of John, the 
first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 
book of Revelation. The remaining lectures will be 
of a more miscellaneous character. 

In the pursuit of this investigation, it will be my 
sincere desire and endeavour to avoid giving pain to any 
one who may entertain different opinions from myself, 
or who shall be conducted to different conclusions 
from the same premises. Every man's sincere opinions 
are entitled to respect, and shall always receive respect 
at my hands. I merely ask all to review the grounds 
of their own opinions. If they are well founded, all I 



22 INTRODUCTORY. 

can say will not shake them. If they are merely 
traditionary, it will give them the opportunity of verify- 
ing, by their own examination, what they have hitherto 
taken on trust. At any rate, it will increase their 
knowledge of the Bible, the great storehouse of divine 
truth. It will enable them better to understand a sub- 
ject deeply interesting to all. 

And I am not without my hopes of great practical 
good resulting from doctrinal discussion, for if I know 
my own heart, I had rather make one practical Chris- 
tian, than fifty skilful polemics. The wisest of us 
possess only an approximation to the truth. What we 
believe, we have embraced upon the best information 
we have possessed. We ought then, rather to be 
helped on to something better in future, than blamed 
for what we have believed in time past. And it is our 
duty always to keep our minds open to new accessions 
of truth, to discard, as far as possible, all prejudice, 
and never to be ashamed of being wiser to-day than we 
were yesterday. Ever be ready to listen to what any 
honest man has to say for his honest opinion, for no 
human mind has ever seen the whole of truth. It 
follows of course, that it exists in fragments among the 
various sects into which the church has been divided. 
Although you may not be convinced by what seems 
irresistible demonstration to another, you may be led to 
see that he has strong reasons for his faith, strong 
enough at least to rescue him from the imputation of 
want of integrity and want of sense. 

I know of no way in which the narrow sectarianism, 
which deforms and distracts the Christian Church, can 



INTRODUCTORY. 23 

fcd broken up, except by a freer intercourse and com- 
munion among all who bear the Christian name. Let 
them listen candidly to each other, and if not brought 
to think alike, they will be brought to perceive that the 
points in which they differ, are of less importance than 
they imagined, while they kept aloof from each other. 
And above all, let them beware of the iniquity of con- 
demning unheard, any class of Christians, who take the 
Bible for their guide. 



LECTURE II. 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 
JOHN, XVII. 3. 

AND THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE, THE ONLY 
TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAST SENT. 

It will be the object of this lecture, to state the 
argument between the advocates of the Trinitarian and 
Unitarian faith. What are their doctrines, and by 
what arguments are they sustained ? What objections 
lie against them each, and how are those objections 
explained away ? The two parties agree in their 
definition of what God is. In the words of the West- 
minster Catechism, " God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, 
unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, 
justice, goodness and truth." In the answer to the 
next question of the same Catechism, they both agree. 
Question. " Are there more gods than one ? " An- 
swer. " There is but One only, the living and the true 
God." In the answer to the next question, they are 
diametrically opposed. " How many persons are 
there in the Godhead ? " The Trinitarian answers, 
There are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 25 

the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This the Unitarian 
categorically denies. He affirms, that the Father is 
the only living and true God, that the Son is not God, 
and that the Holy Ghost is not a person. Here then 
the case is made up, and the question stated, and the 
evidence is to be produced on both sides, and all who 
hear or read, are the jury to decide which side is proved 
by the evidence. 

But before we proceed to the discussion, it is neces- 
sary that we should settle the meaning of the terms we 
are to use. What do we mean, when we say that 
God is One ? We mean, I conceive, the same thing 
that is meant, when the Scriptures say, " that God is 
a Spirit." All we can know of God, is through the 
analogy of the human spirit. We cannot imagine a 
single attribute in God, which we do not find in our- 
selves in some degree. We have the authority of the 
Scriptures for saying, that God created man in his 
own image. We find no Trinity of persons in man ; 
and if there is in God, then man is not created in the 
image of God. The attributes of a human spirit are, 
one undivided consciousness, carrying on one process 
of mental operations, and one will ; one thinking prin- 
ciple, and one agent. This is the only possible idea 
that we can form of God. What is the meaning of 
the word person ? It has two principal meanings. 
One is, a rational, intelligent agent. The other is, a 
character in which an agent acts. Under different char- 
acters the agent may continue identically the same. 
These are the only intelligible meanings of the word 
person. If we use the word in the first sense, the 
3 



26 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

proposition, " There are three Persons in the God- 
head," becomes contradictory. It will be this, There 
are three Persons in one Person. If we use it in the 
second, the phraseology is wrong. It ought not to be, 
There are three Persons in the Godhead, but God 
acts in three Persons, or three characters, which would 
not be inconsistent with his essential unity. The way 
then, in which this fallacy is covered over, is by a 
slight shifting of terms in the two propositions. God 
is changed in the second proposition into Godhead. 
Godhead can, in reality, mean nothing more nor less 
than God. But if the word God had been retained, 
the very proposition would have carried its own refuta- 
tion along with it, for it would have stood thus, There 
are three Persons in God. 

But the advocates of the Trinity declare, that they 
do not use the word Person in either of these senses. 
But in what sense they do use it, they do not define. 
If this be the case, then we are contending about a 
proposition, the meaning of which its very advocates 
themselves do not pretend to understand. It is impos- 
sible to refute a proposition which has no definite 
meaning. You may take it in all known meanings, and 
refute them all, and still they may say, that they do 
not take it in any of them, and refusing to define their 
meaning, still assert that the proposition is true. 

There are but two sources of evidence upon this 
subject, the works of God, and his word, the light of 
Nature and the light of Revelation. Does nature, 
the works of God, furnish any evidence that God sub- 
sists in three Persons ? Not one particle. There is 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 27 

no more evidence that he subsists in three Persons, 
than in four, or forty. The whole universe bear marks 
of being the work of one designing mind, one first 
cause, one intellect, one will, one energy, in short, 
one Person, in the only sense in which the word person 
has any meaning when applied to the subject. Not the 
slightest traces can we find of the agency of more than 
one Person in the universe. From nature then, the 
proposition, " There are three Persons in the God- 
head," derives not the least particle of support. So 
far then as one source of evidence is concerned, it falls 
to the ground, and the opposite proposition is estab- 
lished, that God subsists in one Person, instead of 
three. 

We go then to the Scriptures, the second source 
of evidence, with a strong presumption in favor of the 
doctrine of the personal unity of God, and against that 
of there being three Persons in God, or God subsisting 
in three persons, arising from the fact, that the doctrine 
that God is one Person is intelligible, reasonable, and 
consistent, and is confirmed by the appearances of 
nature ; whereas a God in three Persons is unintelligible, 
unreasonable, inconsistent, and comes so near a con- 
tradiction, that many minds can see no difference be- 
tween them. 

When we come to the Bible, the state of the 
question is this. It is not pretended that it is any 
where expressly asserted that God subsists in three 
persons. On the other hand, it is expressly asserted 
that God is one ; not only that there is but one God, 
but that God is one. The way then, that the doctrine 



28 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

of the Trinity is proved from the Scriptures is this. 
It is asserted, that three Persons are there spoken of, 
who possess divine attributes. The natural inference 
from this would be, that there are three Gods, or that 
God acts in three characters ; but another inference is 
drawn from it, different from either, that each of these 
Persons is God, the one God, and yet are different 
from each other. Now it is true, that God subsists 
either in one person, or in three persons. If the 
Scriptures assert both sides of this proposition, then 
the Scriptures contradict themselves, and it is impossi- 
ble to ascertain the truth from them. If the Scriptures 
are true, the advocates of one doctrine or the other 
misinterpret them. Here then are the texts on both 
sides, those which seem to teach a Trinity, and those 
which seem to teach the Unity. If the Trinity is true, 
then all those texts which seem to teach the Unity must 
be capable of being explained, so as to agree with it, for 
they are so many objections to it. If the Unity is true, 
then all those texts which seem to teach the Trinity, 
must be capable of an explanation consistent with the 
Unity. Then the question would be, supposing them 
both to be equally possible and probable in themselves, 
whether it is easier to explain those passages, which 
seem to teach a Trinity in consistence with those which 
teach the Unity, or to explain those which teach the 
Unity in consistence with those which teach the Trinity. 
And this seems to me to be a fair statement of the 
question. All the arguments in favor of one, are diffi- 
culties in the way of the other. It is a balance of 
opposite arguments and opposite difficulties. Every 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 29 

text in the Old and New Testaments, in which God is 
spoken of without any distinction of Persons, or as one 
Person, is an argument for the Unitarian faith, and 
presents a difficulty to the Trinitarian, which must be 
explained away. A reason must be given, why God 
in that particular case, did not speak, or was not spoken 
of as three Persons, but did speak, or was spoken of, 
as one Person. In short, those passages of Scripture 
must be reasoned away. Of the thirteen hundred 
places in the New Testament alone, in which the word 
God appears, there is not one, which necessarily implies 
three Persons. In the Old Testament there are above 
two thousand places, in which the word God appears, 
without any intimation of a distinction of Persons. 
There are seventeen places in the New Testament, in 
which the Father is called the one, or the only God. 
Now all these, more than two thousand passages, the 
Trinitarian must explain, that is, show by reasoning, 
how each individual case is consistent with the suppo- 
sition of a Trinity of Persons in God. The Unitarian 
is accused of explaining away Scripture ; but what are 
the few texts which he has to explain, when compared 
with two thousand ? 

I would begin then by saying, the very terms in 
which the Trinity is expressed, contain a refutation of 
the doctrine, u There are three Persons in the God- 
head, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
The terms Father and Son, contradict the very hypoth- 
esis. So far as these terms express the relation between 
the two Persons, they assert that one is derived from 
the other. An eternal Son is a contradiction in terms, 
3* 



30 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

and the very definition given of God is, that he is 
eternal and unchangeable. The Son then, so far as 
the word Son expresses his attributes, cannot by any 
possibility be God. No derived or dependent being 
can be God. The question immediately occurs, Of 
whom is he the Son ? The Scriptural answer is, 
" The Son of God." The Son of God cannot be 
God, because he must be another, and be derived, and 
because the attributes, which are necessary to Deity 
cannot be communicated, eternity and self-subsistence. 
It is true, theologians have invented a hypothesis to 
cover up this difficulty, and said that the Son is derived 
by an eternal generation. But this is only substituting 
one difficulty for another. Eternal generation is just as 
much a contradiction, as eternal Son. Then as to the 
third Person, the Holy Ghost, the very phrase shows 
that it is not only not a Person of the Godhead, but not 
a person at all. Ghost is an obsolete word, meaning 
the same thing as spirit. Now the Holy Spirit is not a 
proper name ; it is the name of a thing. As such, it is 
in the neuter gender in English, and so it was in Greek, 
A thing is generally the property of some person. We 
ask, whose the Holy Spirit is ? And the Scriptural 
answer is, that it is the Spirit of God. And if it is the 
Spirit of God, it can no more be a person, separate 
from God, than the spirit of a man can be a person, 
separate from the man himself. And this agrees pre- 
cisely with the representation of Scripture. " For 
what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit 
of man that is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth 
no one but the Spirit of God." 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 31 

Of what elements is the Trinity made up, according 
to the very terms in which it is expressed, Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost ? The first Person is God, the 
second the Son of God, and the third the Spirit of 
God. And what sort of a Trinity is this, made up of 
the Deity, a person derived from the Deity, and the 
spiritual essence of the Deity ? I here might close the 
discussion with a simple analysis of the terms of the 
proposition, laid down to be proved. But it will be 
proper, in order more fully to develope the subject, to 
go into it more at large, and explain those texts of 
Scripture, which are thought to justify such a concep- 
tion of God. 

I commence therefore the argumentative part of my 
discourse by saying, that not only is the doctrine of 
the Trinity not proved by those texts, which are 
alleged in its support, but is always invalidated by 
something in the text itself, or in immediate connexion 
with it. 

We will begin with the exclamation of Thomas to 
Jesus after his resurrection : " My Lord and my 
God." This is often alleged as an irresistible argu- 
ment in favor of the Trinity. But a glance is sufficient 
to show, that it has no bearing upon the subject. 
There is nothing said in it concerning a Trinity, or 
three Persons in the Godhead. If we suppose Thomas, 
in this case, to use the word God in its highest sense, 
it would only prove Thomas to have believed the 
person, who stood before him, to be the Jehovah of 
the Jews, but without the least intimation that Jehovah 
had in himself three persons or distinctions, but rather 



32 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

the contrary, for he says, " My Lord and my God," 
both nouns in the singular number, and applicable to 
only one person instead of three. 

But to my mind, it seems more probable, that he 
did not regard the person who stood before him as the 
Supreme Jehovah, but used the word God in a lower 
sense, in the same sense in which it is used in the Old 
Testament, as a term of the highest reverence to per- 
sons of exalted character or station, to kings and 
magistrates, to Moses and to David. And the reasons 
which lead me to think so, are the very circumstances of 
the case. Thomas doubted — what? that Jesus had 
risen from the dead. And what was the proof which he 
demanded ? cc Unless I see in his hands the print of 
the nails, and thrust my finger into the print of the 
nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not be- 
lieve." Jesus gave him the evidence which he de- 
manded ; he felt his hands and his side. What he said 
then, w T as an exclamation of satisfaction on the point 
which he had disbelieved, — that he had risen. Was 
touching his wounds any evidence that he was the 
infinite Jehovah ? The infinite Jehovah risen from 
the dead ! Impossible. In three verses farther on, John, 
the historian of this interview, writes, " And these were 
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ," 
or the Messiah, not Jehovah, but u the Son of 
God." 

There is another passage of nearly the same nature 
in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, ninth chapter, which 
I shall now consider. As given in our common ver- 
sion, it stands thus : u Whose are the fathers, and of 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 33 

whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over 
all, God blessed forever." This has been cited mil- 
lions of times as irrefragable proof of the Trinity. But 
let us examine it, and if I mistake not, we shall find it 
not only no argument for a Trinity of Persons in the 
Godhead, but an insuperable objection to it. There 
is not a word in it intimating a Trinity, or any distinc- 
tion of the Godhead into three Persons, Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. It is a part of the scheme of Trini- 
tarianism, that this distinction existed in the Divine 
Nature, before the existence of the human nature of 
Christ. It is likewise a part of the same system, that 
only one of the three Persons, the Son, became incar- 
nate in the human nature of Christ. But this passage, 
if it proved any incarnation, would prove the incarna- 
tion of the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. 
" God over all," must mean the whole Deity, for 
neither of the Persons can be God over all, for he must 
be God over the other two, under the category of 
" all." This passage then, so far from being a proof 
of the Trinity, is utterly subversive of it, and proves, 
if it proves anything, that there is no such distinction 
in the Godhead, that God is one, one Person as well 
as one Being. But it is unnecessary to go into any such 
explanation, as the present sense depends altogether on 
the present punctuation, and the punctuation, as we 
have it, depended on the opinion of our translators, 
who were Trinitarians. In the most ancient copies of 
the Bible, there is no punctuation. There are no spaces 
between the words. The letters are what we call 
capital letters, and are written along after one another 



34 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 



as we write the alphabet, without division into words. 
Of course, punctuation is arbitrary. If therefore we 
put a period after Christ, the whole passage will read 
thus. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con- 
cerning the flesh, Christ came. He who is God over 
all, be blessed forever." 

I am aware that it has been said, that there are 
grammatical difficulties in the way of the rendering 
which I have given. But I am convinced, after the 
most mature examination, that there are greater difficul- 
ties in the construction which was given by king James's 
translators, in our common version. This I hope to 
be able to show to the satisfaction even of those who 
are unacquainted with the original. 

A simple sentence usually affirms or denies some- 
thing of a person or a thing. The person or thing 
spoken of, is in the language of logic, called the sub- 
ject. What is affirmed of the subject, is called the 
predicate. As for instance, " God is great." God, 
in this case, is the subject, and great the predicate. 
A sentence may have two predicates. In that case, it 
becomes a compound sentence. But the rules of 
grammar compel us to connect them by a particle, 
such as and, or, &c. God is great and good. If 
we leave out the connecting particle, w T e consolidate 
the two predicates into one. In other words, we 
cannot have two predicates without a connecting par- 
ticle. 

I go on to apply these principles to the case under 
consideration. u Whose are the fathers, and of whom is 
Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God, 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 35 

blessed forever. Amen." If we make u who " relate 
to Christ, then we make God the predicate of the sen- 
tence, which commences after the word flesh, and 
then we have three predicates without any connecting 
word, namely, first, that Christ is over all, secondly, 
that he is God, and thirdly, that he is blessed forever. 
Now the rules of grammar do not permit us to arrange 
words in this way. Paul himself, with all his haste, 
did not jumble words together in this manner, mixing 
up ascriptions with simple affirmations. The difficulty 
is removed by making a full point at the word flesh, 
u of whom is Christ according to the flesh," and con- 
sidering the remainder as a perfect sentence. u God " 
then becomes the subject of this latter sentence, and 
" blessed " the predicate; and this pointing, to my 
mind, makes better grammar as well as theology, than 
the common reading, and it stands thus ; " Whose are 
the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the 
flesh. He, who is God over all, be blessed for- 
ever." 

Some scholars have been embarrassed by commenc- 
ing a new sentence with the Greek phrase, 6 im>, he 
who, as a compound, instead of a relative pronoun. I 
can only say, that there is abundant authority for it in 
the New Testament. The second clause of the thirty- 
first verse of the third chapter of John's Gospel, begins 
in the same way. " He that is, ? w, of the earth is 
earthly, and speaketh of the earth." The forty-seventh 
verse of the eighth chapter begins in the same way. 
" He that is, 6 m 9 of God, speaketh the words of 
God." A similar construction is found in the forty- 



36 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

sixth verse of the sixth chapter. " Not that any one 
hath seen the Father, except it be he, who is, 6 av, with 
God ; he hath seen the Father." 

For these reasons, abstracted from all theological 
considerations, I should prefer the reading given 
above on the ground of grammatical construction 
alone. 

I know it has been objected likewise to the render- 
ing I have given above, that the change of subject is 
too sudden. The doxology, if directed to God, is too 
unpremeditated, and breaks the continuity of thought. 
But there is a passage in the same writer, in his first 
Epistle to Timothy, where the transition is quite as 
sudden and abrupt, and the doxology to God quite as 
unconnected with what had gone before. u This is a 
faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that 
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of 
whom I am chief. Howbeit, for this cause I obtained 
mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth 
all long suffering, for a pattern to them, which should 
hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Unto the 
King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be 
honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." This, to 
my mind, bears a strong resemblance to the other, and 
is in the middle of an earnest discourse. 

Another passage, upon which great stress is laid, is 
found in the twentieth verse of the fifth chapter of 
the first epistle of John. In our common version it 
reads thus : " And we know that the Son of God is 
come, and hath given us understanding, that we may 
know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 37 

even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God 
and eternal life." It is affirmed, that in this passage 
Christ is called the true God, by making the last clause 
of the sentence to refer to Jesus instead of God. But, 
as it happens, the passage, as it now stands, does not 
make sense. " We are in him that is true, even in 
his Son Jesus Christ," is not sense. It would be 
making God and his Son Jesus Christ, one and iden- 
tical, the same person and the same being, which de- 
stroys the Trinity, as well as makes no sense ; for it is 
necessary to the Trinity to make the Father and 
the Son to be two persons, distinct, as persons, from 
each other. Besides, it makes the latter part of the 
sentence contradict the former. The former part of 
the sentence is : " The Son of God is come, and 
hath given us understanding, that we may know him 
that is true ; " that is, that we may know God, — parallel 
to that passage in which Christ avers that he came 
that " men might know the Father as the only true 
God, and Jesus Christ whom he had sent ; " and the 
consequence is, that we are in him that is true, that is, 
we believe in him that is true, or in the true God, and 
devote ourselves to him. As is said by Peter, in one 
of his Epistles, " Who by him do believe in God, who 
raised him from the dead, and gave him glory." But 
the latter part of the sentence confounds the instrument, 
by which we are in God, with that God in whom we 
are, by his instrumentality. The whole inconsistency 
is removed by giving the passage its true translation. 
If you will look into your Bibles, you will find the 
particle " even " printed in italics, which means that it 
4 



38 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

is not in the original, but is supplied by the translators, 
to make out what they thought the sense. The Greek 
preposition, gy, rendered, in our version, in, has a great 
variety of significations. Among others, it often means 
through, indicating the instrument by which anything 
is done. For instance, "He casteth out devils through 
the prince of the devils," literally, sv, in. " Such can 
come out only through prayer and fasting," literally, e v , 
in ; and a host of other examples might be given. 
Translating the second "«>," by through, as the indi- 
cation of the instrument, and leaving out the word even, 
which was arbitrarily put in, we have the meaning clear 
and consistent : u We are in him that is true, through 
his Son Jesus Christ," that is, through his instrumen- 
tality ; which is precisely the fact, and corresponds with 
the former part of the sentence, as will appear when 
we put it all together : " We know that the Son of 
God is come, and has given us understanding, that we 
may know him that is true, and we are in him that is 
true, through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
God and eternal life," referring, not to Jesus Christ, 
but to "him that is true," that is, God, in whom we 
are through Jesus Christ. 

There is another passage, of nearly the same nature, 
which has often been adduced to prove the Trinity, 
which, when examined, is found to look precisely in 
the opposite direction. It is found in Christ's conver- 
sation with Thomas, probably at the last supper. 
" Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, 
and the life ; no man cometh unto the Father except by 
me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 39 

Father also ; and from henceforth ye know him, and 
have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Show us the 
Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have 
I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not 
known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me, hath seen 
the Father.*' At first sight of this passage, the Trinita- 
rian would exclaim, perhaps, What more explicit asser- 
tion of our doctrine could we ask than this ? What words 
could Christ have chosen more decisive than these ? 
But, on a nearer examination, it is found not only not to 
teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but to be inconsistent 
w 7 ith it. Taking the words in their literal import, they 
would assert that he was the Father himself, in his 
whole personality, and that he himself had no person- 
ality beside. Now is this consistent with the doctrine 
of the Trinity, which strenuously maintains that Jesus 
had a human nature, a human body, and a human soul ? 
Allowing that he had a human body and a human soul, 
then, if he who saw him saw the Father, it would 
follow that the Father became incarnate, which Trinita- 
rianism positively denies. The Son became incarnate, 
but not the Father. The Father, the first Person of 
the Trinity, sent the Son, who is the second Person. 
But here the Father came himself. This text, then, if 
taken literally, would prove too much, too much for the 
very doctrine which it is brought to substantiate. But, 
as he proceeds, he explains himself, and shows that it 
is not of a literal seeing God that he speaks, nor is it 
of a personal union with him. u Believest thou not 
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? The 
words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; 



40 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

the Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." 
If these words proved the incarnation of one of the 
Persons of the Trinity, it would prove that of the 
Father. The way then, in which God appears in Christ, 
according to this language, is, that God wrought his 
miracles, and gave him his doctrines. Those who saw 
his miracles and heard his doctrines, gained a clearer 
knowledge of God. There is no intermediate agency 
of any such person as is called the Son, the second 
Person of the Trinity. For he, possessing infinite 
attributes, would naturally have exerted them in per- 
forming the miracles of Jesus. If there were such a 
person in Christ, he was entirely quiescent, and is 
passed over in the profoundest silence. Neither can 
he be supposed to be included in the person repre- 
sented by the pronoun " me," in the sentence, u The 
Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," for 
one Person of the Trinity, cannot be supposed to dwell 
in, and do the works of another. There is nothing left 
then, in this representation, but the Father and the 
human nature of Christ. That this indwelling does not 
constitute a personal identity, appears in the very lan- 
guage : " The Father that dwelleth in me." He who 
affirms that God dwells in him, denies, of course, that 
he is God. So that this passage, which is so often 
appealed to as proving the Trinity, when examined 
and analyzed, is found to be utterly inconsistent with 
it, and to teach, in fact, the simplest form of Unitari- 
anism. The connection between God and Christ, 
which is here pointed out, is the very one that Uni- 
tarians acknowledge. Through Christ, we believe, 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 41 

God was manifested to the world in a more full and 
glorious manner than he is in any other way. But the 
idea, that he who fills immensity and inhabits eternity, 
became incarnate in a finite human being, seems to 
them to be in itself a most astonishing imagination, 
equally repugnant to the essential attributes of Jehovah, 
as to the express language of the Scriptures. And 
then, were there any such things as persons in God, 
the objections to incarnation would lie in equal force 
against either, and against all. 

But it is said, that the Apostles and early Christians 
worshipped Christ. If he was not God, then they 
were idolators. It is said, that Stephen worshipped 
him in his last moments. Our Bible tells us: u And 
they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, 
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, 
and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their 
charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." 

I would first remark upon this passage, that the word 
God is not in the original, but was supplied by our 
Trinitarian translators, as you will perceive, on exam- 
ining your Bibles, that the word is printed in italics. 
It was honestly done, doubtless, for they thought that 
the doctrine of the Trinity was taught in other parts of 
the Scriptures, and therefore saw no harm in putting it 
in here. 

It is only necessary to go back a few verses, and 
read what Stephen saw in vision at that moment, to 
remove all apprehension that he worshipped Christ as 
God. u And he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked 
up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, 
4* 



42 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and 
said : Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of 
man standing on the right hand of God." Now for one, 
I am unable to imagine that Stephen could have wor- 
shipped, as God, a person whom he so carefully dis- 
tinguishes from God, and whom he saw standing on the 
right hand of God. That he should have addressed 
him, and said what he did to him, is perfectly rational : 
u Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ; " for he saw him in 
a state of power and glory, and able therefore to wel- 
come his departing soul to heaven. Jesus himself had 
said : "In my Father's house are many mansions. I 
go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and pre- 
pare a place for you, I will come again, and receive 
you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be 
also." But whatever power and glory he had, arose 
from the fact, not that he possessed them himself 
intrinsically, but that he stood on the right hand of 
God. 

He is recorded to have uttered the expression, 
u Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," before he knelt 
down. After this we read, "And he kneeled down, 
and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to 
their charge." There is nothing in these words to 
determine whether they were addressed to God or to 
Christ, as the term Lord is an appellation in the 
Scriptures applied to God, to Christ, and to inferior 
beings. Most probably it was addressed to God, and 
is similar to the prayer of Christ upon the cross : 
u Father, forgive them, they know not what they 
do." Or even if it were addressed to Christ, it 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 43 

would be far from proving that Stephen worshipped 
him as God ; for he, with the Apostles, considered 
Jesus to have received power from God, after his 
ascension, sufficient to establish his religion, and punish 
his enemies. 

This instance of alleged worship to Christ, brings 
up a class of texts, which are said to show that the 
early Christians made a practice of worshipping 
Christ. As strong a case of it as there is, occurs in 
a vision of Ananias, at Damascus, at the time of Paul's 
conversion. "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have 
heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath 
done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath 
authority from the chief priests to bind all that call 
upon thy name." It is maintained, that this means, 
u who are worshippers of thee." 

This would be an argument of some strength, if 
the expression, " to call on the name" of any one, 
were restricted to the meaning of worship. But this 
is not the case. It has likewise the meaning of pro- 
fessing a religion, of taking a name, &c. To see 
what is the force of this species of phraseology, I shall 
bring up several instances in which it occurs. James 
says, in his speech at the council at Jerusalem : 
" Simeon hath declared how God, at the first, did 
visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for 
his name," to receive and profess the true religion. 
A few verses onward he says : " That the residue of 
men might seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon 
whom my name is called;" that is, who shall call them- 
selves, and be called my people ; who shall profess 



44 TRINITY AND UNITY. 

my religion. This last is a quotation from the Old 
Testament. There is in it another passage of similar 
import. "One shall say, I am the Lord's; and 
another shall call himself by the name of Jacob ; and 
another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and 
surname himself by the name of Israel." This, of 
course, refers to converts to the Jewish faith. They 
will take upon themselves the name of Jehovah, that 
is, profess the worship of the true God ; and take the 
name of Jacob, that is, call themselves Israelites. And 
this throws no little light on the forms of baptism in 
the New Testament. The Christians, on being con- 
verted from Paganism, took upon themselves the name 
of God, and of Christ, and called themselves Chris- 
tians. 

There is a passage in Paul's second Epistle to Tim- 
othy, which bears a strong resemblance to the one we 
are considering. " Let every one that nameth the 
name of Christy depart from iniquity ;" not every one 
who worshippeth Christ, but any one who professes to 
be a Christian. Another from the Epistle of James 
sustains the same view. " Do they not blaspheme 
that worthy name by which ye are called ? " that is, the 
name of Christians. 

Still further, to learn what Ananias means, when he 
says, " And here he hath authority from the chief 
priests to bind all that call upon thy name," let us con- 
sider, that worshipping Christ, is not the point in ques- 
tion, but it is professing Christianity. It was not 
their worshipping Christ, that made them obnoxious to 
Paul and the Jewish Sanhedrim, but their acknowledge 



TRINITY AND UNITY. 45 

ing him as the Messiah. What the phrase really 
means, is further indicated by a slight change which 
the same writer makes in it, when he uses it a little 
afterward : " But all who heard him were amazed, and 
said, Is not this he that destroyed them that called on 
this name in Jerusalem ?" Men do not worship names, 
they are called by them. Is it not evident, that the 
sense w 7 ould have been much better expressed by this 
form of words : u Is not this he, that destroyed them 
which are called by this name in Jerusalem ?" meaning 
those who profess this faith. 

I have thus, in this lecture, stated to you the antece- 
dent improbability of the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
the presumption there is in favor of the divine Unity. 
I have brought forward some of the strongest passages 
which are alleged to prove the Deity of Christ, and of 
course the Trinity ; and by analyzing them, attempted 
to show you, that they do not establish the doctrine, 
and have, in some cases, a bearing directly the oppo- 
site way. I have examined the proofs that the early 
Christians were in the habit of worshipping Christ, and 
found them unsatisfactory. In my judgment, there is 
nothing, in all the arguments we have examined, to 
shake the doctrine, that God is One in every sense, one 
Essence, one Spirit, one Intelligence, one Person, 
u the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
But let every one weigh the evidence for himself. 



LECTURE III. 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 
JOHN, I. 1. 

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND 
THE WORD WAS GOD. 

The method which I shall adopt, in explaining to you 
the passage of Scripture selected for this evening, will be 
this. As it is thought to be one of the main arguments 
for the Trinity, I shall first give it the Trinitarian expo- 
sition, and then state my reasons for not acquiescing 
in it. Then I shall give what I conceive to be the 
true meaning, and my reasons for adopting it. The 
main difference between the Unitarian and Trinitarian 
exposition of this passage is, that the Trinitarian con- 
siders the Word to be a person, the Unitarian a per- 
sonification, that is, the representation of a thing, as if 
it possessed personal attributes. In order to be entirely 
fair, I shall give the paraphrase of Dr. Doddridge, a 
Trinitarian commentator on the New Testament. " In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God." In the beginning, be- 
fore the foundation of the world, or the first production 
of any created being, a glorious Person existed, who 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 47 

(on account of the perfections of his nature, and his 
being in time the medium of divine manifestations to us), 
may be properly called the Word of God. And the 
Word was originally with God, the Father of all : so 
that to him the words of Solomon might justly be ap- 
plied : u He was by him, as one brought up with him, 
and was daily his delight." Nay, by a generation 
which none can declare, and a union which none can 
fully conceive, the Word was himself God ; that is, 
possessed of a nature truly and properly divine. 

" The same was in the beginning with God." I re- 
peat it again, that the condescension of his incarnation 
may be the more attentively considered, this divine 
Word was in the beginning with God, and by virtue of 
his most intimate union with him, was possessed of in- 
finite glory and felicity. " All things were made by 
him, and without him was not anything made that was 
made." And when it pleased God to begin the work 
of creation, all things in the compass of nature were 
made by him, even by this almighty Word, and without 
him was not anything made, not so much as one single 
being, whether among the noblest or the meanest of 
God's various works. 

"In him was life, and the life was the light of 
men." That fulness of power, wisdom, and benig- 
nity, which was in him, was the fountain of life to the 
whole creation : and it is in particular our concern to 
remember, that the life which was in him was the light 
of men, as all the light of reason and revelation was the 
effect of his energy on the mind. 

" And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness 



48 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

comprehendeth it not." And the light long shone in 
the heathen world, and under the dispensation of 
Moses ; and it still shineth in darkness, even on the 
minds of the most ignorant and prejudiced part of man- 
kind ; and yet the darkness was so gross that it op- 
posed its passage, and such was the prevailing degen- 
eracy of their hearts, that they did not apprehend it, 
or regard its dictates, in such a manner as to secure the 
blessings to which it would have led them. 

" There was a man sent from God. whose name 
was John. The same came for a witness, to bear 
witness of the light, that all men through him might 
believe." As this was the case for many ages, the 
Divine Wisdom was pleased to interpose in these latter 
days, by a clearer and fuller discovery ; and for this 
purpose, a man, whose name was John, afterwards 
called the Baptist, was sent as a messenger from God ; 
of whose miraculous conception and important ministry, 
a more particular account is also here given. But 
here, it may be sufficient to observe in general, that 
though he was himself, in an inferior sense, u a burning 
and a shining light," yet he came only under the char- 
acter of a servant, and for a witness, that he might 
testify concerning Christ, the true light, that all, who 
heard his discourses, might, by his means, be engaged 
to believe and follow that divine illumination. 

" He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness 
of that light. That was the true light which lighteth 
every man that cometh into the world." And accord- 
ingly, he most readily confessed, that he himself was 
not that light, but only came to bear witness concern- 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 49 

ing it. The true light, of which he spake, was Christ, 
even that Sun of righteousness, and source of truth, 
which coming into the world, enlighteneth every man, 
dispersing his beams, as it were, from one end of the 
heavens to the other, to the Gentile, which was in 
midnight darkness, as well as to the Jew 7 s, who enjoyed 
but a kind of twilight. 

u He was in the world, and the world was made by 
him, and the world knew him not. He came to his 
own, and his own received him not." He was in the 
world in a human form ; and though the world was 
made by him, yet the world knew and acknowledged 
him not. Yea, he came to his own territories, even to 
the Jewish nation, which was under such obligations 
to him, and to whom he had been so expressly prom- 
ised as their great Messiah ; yet his own people did 
not receive him as they ought ; but, on the contrary, 
treated him in the most contemptuous and ungrateful 
manner. 

" But as many as received him, to them gave he 
power to become sons of God, even to them that be- 
lieve on his name : which were born not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." Nevertheless, the detriment was theirs, and it 
was unspeakably great to them ; for to as many as re- 
ceived him, and by a firm and lively faith believed on 
his name, even to all of them, without any exception of 
even the poorest or the vilest, he granted the glorious 
privilege of becoming sons of God ; that is, he adopted 
them into God's family, so that they became entitled to 
the present immunities, and the future eternal inheritance 
5 



50 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

of his children. And they, who thus believed on him, 
were possessed of these privileges, not in consequence 
of their being born of blood, of their being descended 
from the loins of the holy patriarchs, or sharing in cir- 
cumcision and the blood of sacrifices ; nor could they 
ascribe it merely to the will of the flesh, or to their own 
superior wisdom and goodness, as if by the power of cor- 
rupted nature alone they had made themselves to differ ; 
nor to the will of man, nor to the wisest advice and 
most powerful exhortations which their fellow creatures 
might address to them ; but must humbly acknowledge 
that they were born of God, and indebted to the effica- 
cious influences of his regenerating grace for all their 
privileges and all their hopes. 

u And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only 
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." And, 
in order to raise us sinful creatures to such illustrious 
dignity and happiness, the divine and eternal Word, 
that glorious Person whom we mentioned above, by a 
most amazing condescension was made flesh, that is, 
united himself to our inferior and miserable nature, 
with all its innocent infirmities ; and he not only made 
us a transient visit for an hour or a day, but for a con- 
siderable time pitched his tabernacle among us on 
earth ; and we, w r ho are now recording those things, 
contemplated his glory with so strict an attention, that, 
from our own personal knowledge, we can bear our testi- 
mony to it, that it was in every respect such a glory as 
became the only begotten of the Father : for it shone 
forth, not merely in that radiant appearance which in- 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 51 

vested him on the mount of transfiguration, and in the 
splendor of his miracles, but in all his temper, minis- 
tration, and conduct, through the whole series of his 
life, in which he appeared full of grace and truth ; that 
is, as he was in himself most benevolent and upright, 
so he made the amplest discoveries of pardon to sin- 
ners, which the Mosaic dispensation could not do, and 
exhibited the most important and substantial blessings, 
whereas that was, at best, but a shadow of good things 
to come." 

Such is the paraphrase of Dr. Doddridge, one of 
the most learned and fair of Trinitarian commenta- 
tors. 

I will now state my objections to this construction of 
this celebrated passage. In the first place, " The 
Word " is not the name of a person, but of a thing. 
As a person, it would be the introduction of something 
entirely new. The question occurs, If it be a thing, 
whose word is it, by which all things were created ? 
and the legitimate Scriptural answer is, God's word. 
There is no such person as the Word made known to 
us in any other part of the Bible. In the second place, 
if you make it a person, you introduce the greatest con- 
fusion into the very first sentence. You cannot even 
conceive of an intelligible meaning to it. You can- 
not even conceive of a Person who was with God, and 
was God at the same time. According to the Trinita- 
rian construction, the Word was the second Person of 
the Trinity. In that case you must make God stand 
for the first Person of the Trinity, or for the whole 
Deity, without distinction of Persons. In the one case, 



52 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

it will be saying, that the second Person was with the 
first Person, and was the first Person ; or in the other, 
it will be saying, the second Person was with the whole 
Deity, and was the whole Deity. Now neither of these 
meanings of the term Word, makes intelligible sense. 
We are driven then by the very language, to make Word 
a personification of the divine attributes, instead of a 
real person. 

In the third place, if we make the Word the second 
Person of a Trinity, we make the first Person almost 
entirely uninteresting to us, indeed to have little or 
nothing to do with us. The second Person made the 
Universe, and all things in it. He made us, for by 
him was every thing made that was made. The Per- 
son, who made the universe, sustains and governs it. 
And when you have said this, you have made the first 
Person entirely quiescent. He has no relation to us. 
He is not an object of prayer, for he is not our Creator, 
nor Disposer, nor can he interpose for our benefit, ex- 
cept as an intercessor with the second Person, who is, 
in fact, the Maker and the Ruler of all things. Now 
this is contradictory, not only to all sound theism, but 
to Trinitarianism itself. According to that system, 
the second Person is sent by the first, to be a Medi- 
ator between himself and mankind. 

My fourth objection is, that according to the Trinita- 
rian theory, the Word, the second Person in the Trinity, 
after the incarnation, became so united to the human 
nature of Christ, as to form one Person, and in this 
form, the world is reproached for not recognizing him 
as its Creator. u He was in the world, and the world 
was made by him, and the world knew him not." 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 53 

Now, considering the Word as a person, this reproach 
is without point. There was nothing about Christ, 
personally, to lead the world even to suspect that he 
was its Creator, or that he had more than a human 
nature, aided by the wisdom and the power of God. 
" He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, 
and had not where to lay his head." He suffered pain, 
was crucified, commended his spirit into the hands 
of God, and died. There was nothing in all this to 
convince mankind that he was the Creator of the world, 
but every thing to convince them that he was not. He 
never made any such pretension. The Creator and 
Governor of the world might have wrought miracles 
by his own power, if he had chosen to do so ; and if it 
had been any part of his purpose to convince the world 
that he was its Creator, Christ would have let the 
world know, that he wrought miracles by his own 
power. But he says, " Of mine own self I can do 
nothing." u The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
the works." At the grave of Lazarus, he does not 
pretend to raise him by his own power, but says, 
" Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I 
know that thou hearest me always; but because of the 
people which stand by, I said it, that they may believe " 
— what ? that I am the Creator of the world ? no, but 
u that thou hast sent me." This was the ground upon 
which Christ claimed the attention and obedience of 
the world, that God had sent him ; not that he was the 
Creator of the world, but that he had been sent and 
commissioned by the Creator of the world. " This is 
life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true 
5* 



54 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

God, and Jesus Christ ivhom thou hast sent." The 
only true God can be none other than the Creator. 
If Christ is the Creator, then he is the only true God 
to us. Any other God is nothing to us, for he can 
have nothing to do with us. It could not have been a 
matter of reproach to the world, that they did not re- 
cognize Christ as their Creator, as there was nothing in 
him to make them think so, and he himself never made 
any such pretension. But if w T e interpret the term 
M Word" to mean an attribute, or several attributes of 
God, personified, then the passage will make sense, and 
carry some point in its reproach. If w 7 e make it mean 
the divine Power, Wisdom and Goodness, which in 
fact constitute the very essence of God, then the pas- 
sage would justly reproach the world for not recognizing 
in Christ the same divine power and wisdom which 
made the world. 

My fifth objection to the Trinitarian apprehension of 
this passage, is found in the fourteenth verse. " And 
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we 
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of 
the Father, full of grace and truth." Now if we sup- 
pose the Word to have been God, personally, in any 
sense, the most irreconcilable inconsistences will fol- 
low. " God became a man," which contradicts the 
very definition of God, that he is unchangeable, and 
cannot become any thing. u And we beheld his glory," 
not original and underived, as the glory of God must 
be, but subordinate and derived, "the glory," literally, 
" as of an only begotten son with his father, full of 
grace and truth." Now the very idea of God's becom- 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 55 

ing a man, is totally shocking. Scarcely less so is it, that 
the Creator of the world should be united, in one person, 
with a human body and a human soul, and in that con- 
dition receive glory from a higher being still. Such 
difficulties are to my mind, I confess, totally insuperable. 
They seem utterly irreconcilable with any clear concep- 
tion of the nature of either God or man. I can conceive 
of divine attributes being with God, and constituting 
God, and being displayed in creation and revelation, and 
being especially manifested in Jesus Christ, so as to 
clothe him with glory, and make him to appear to be 
the peculiar favorite of heaven ; but I cannot conceive 
of a Divine Person to do all this. 

My sixth objection is taken from the fourteenth verse, 
taken in connection with the seventeenth. In the 
seventeenth verse, one special part of his glory seems 
to be, that, as the " only begotten," he was u full of 
grace and truth." In the seventeenth verse, this pre- 
eminence is said not to reside in his person, but in his 
revelation: " For the law was given by Moses, but 
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." There is no 
difference of nature intimated here between Moses and 
Christ, nor any difference in the relation which they 
sustained to man. The law was given by Moses, by 
God of course through Moses, and grace and truth 
came by Jesus Christ, from God of course through 
Christ. This contrast, to my mind, explains the strong 
language of this whole chapter. In the creation, and in 
the Mosaic revelation, God was revealed and made 
known ; but so much more perfect is the knowledge we 
obtain of him through Christ, that he may almost be 
said to be the tabernacle in which he dwelt. 



56 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

My seventh objection, is the reason which John the 
Baptist gives for Christ's superiority to himself. u This 
was he of whom I spake : He that cometh after me is 
preferred before me, for he was before me." And so 
was Moses, and David, and so were the angels, before 
John the Baptist ; but priority in time proved no supe- 
riority. He should have said, if it were true, u be- 
cause he is the Almighty, and I am a man." But the 
true meaning of this passage is totally overlooked by all 
parties. It is a figure of speech, drawn from the way 
in which servants used to walk in relation to their 
masters. They went behind. And it all amounts to 
this, and nothing more. " There is one coming behind 
me, who ought to go before me, for he is my su- 
perior." And he means precisely the same thing that 
he did when he said, u the latchet of whose shoes I 
am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. "* 

John the historian goes on to give the reason and the 
measure of his superiority to John the Baptist. u For 

* It was the office of a servant to go behind his master, to 
carry his shoes when he went to feasts, to substitute them for his 
sandals when he arrived, and to stoop down and put them on and 
off. The figure turns on the two adverbs before and behind, and 
on the fact that Jesus appeared after John, though his superior. 
" One is coming after me as my servant, who ought to go before me 
as my master. Indeed, I am not worthy to be his servant, ' to bear 
his shoes,' according to one Evangelist; or 'to unloose them,' " 
according to another. As authority for rendering ruoonog uov, my 
superior, we have the same use of it in a sentence of Paul. 
" This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that 
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, wv tiqcotoq eiul, 
of whom I am first," not in point of time, but chief in point of 
eminence. Indeed, we have the same sense reported by Matthew, 
in which for nqwrog uov, is substituted ig/vQonQog uov, mightier 
than I. " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but 
he that cometh after me, literally behind me, is mightier than I, 
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear." 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 57 

of his fulness have we all received, and grace for 
grace." It is through Christ that we receive the 
greater fulness of divine revelation, in proportion as he 
received a more full and perfect revelation from God 
than Moses. Such a reason would hardly be given by 
one who knew his real superiority to be derived from 
his nature, and not from his endoivments. Such a 
reason for Christ's superiority to Moses, as the greater 
perfection of his revelation, coming immediately after 
this discourse about the Word, is certainly out of place, 
if that superiority were in fact owing to the incarnation 
of a Person of the Trinity in him ; for it was not the 
true reason. It all goes to show, that the incarnation of 
the Word is a figure of speech, precisely similar to that 
which w r e make use of when we say, of a wise man, 
that he is an incarnation of wisdom, or wisdom has 
taken up her abode in him. And it all amounts to this, 
that revelation, imperfectly imparted before, seemed to 
become incarnate in Christ. The word of God came 
to the ancient prophets from time to time, but it seems 
to have dwelt in Jesus fully and permanently, like a 
person. In him became incarnate the very spirit of 
revelation. It seems to me to be a highly figurative 
and poetic mode of representing what is elsewhere 
simply and plainly expressed. " He, whom God hath 
sent, speaketh the words of God, for God giveth him 
the spirit not by measure." What is called in the one 
case the indwelling of the Word, is in the other called 
the fulness of the Spirit. 

My eighth reason, for thinking that the Word was not 
a person of the Trinity, or a person at all, is found in 



58 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

the eighteenth verse. " No one hath seen God at any 
time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom 
of the Father, he hath declared him." At first sight 
of this passage, the Trinitarian would say, perhaps, that 
he had found a strong confirmation of his hypothesis. 
The Son in the bosom of the Father, is equivalent to 
the Word being with God. But if he examines it 
more closely, he will find that it amounts to a contra- 
diction of his theory. The Father, here spoken of, is 
not the Father which his theory requires. The Father 
which his theory requires, is the Frst Person of a 
Trinity. The Father here spoken of, is the whole 
Deity, without distinction of Persons, and is used as 
synonymous with God in the former part of the sen- 
tence : cc No one hath seen God at any time ; the only 
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father," that 
is, in the bosom of God, " he hath declared him." To 
be in the bosom of another, is an Orientalism, signifying 
not to participate in his nature, but his counsels. It is 
derived from the mode in the East of sitting at table, or 
rather of reclining on couches at the table, in such a 
manner that the head of the person who reclined on the 
right hand, came near the bosom of him who reclined 
on the left, and thus they were in most intimate inter- 
course. Thus John, at the last supper, reclined on 
the bosom of Jesus ; that is, was next him at table. 
As an admirable illustration of this whole subject, I 
refer you to John's account of the last supper. Jesus 
had said, " that one of his disciples should betray 
him." " Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one 
of the disciples whom Jesus loved." Not that it was 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 59 

any thing wonderful for him to recline on his master's 
breast, for they all did the same at the table to each 
other, but it merely means to say, that John sat next to 
Jesus at table, so that he could communicate with him 
privately if he chose. u Simon Peter beckoned to 
him," literally nodded to him, " to ask who this might 
be, of whom he spake. He leaning over the breast of 
Jesus, said to him, Lord, who is it ? Jesus answered, 
It is he, to whom I shall give a morsel, when I have 
dipped it." To be in the bosom of any one, is not to 
partake of his nature, but of his counsels, to have a 
most intimate knowledge of his mind and will, not by 
identity of being or of consciousness, but by freedom 
of communication. All this is perfectly consistent with 
the impersonality of the Word, but inconsistent with 
its personality. The Word, considered as a Person of 
the Trinity, cannot derive knowledge from God, cannot, 
in Oriental phrase, be in the bosom of the Father. And 
here has been a great source of error in the interpreta- 
tion of the Bible. Coming to it with the Trinitarian 
hypothesis, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
people have taken it for granted, that Father, when 
applied to God, means the first Person of a Trinity, 
instead of the whole Deity, without distinction of Per- 
sons. But a little examination would convince them, 
that there is no such meaning in the Bible. 

Such, then, area few among many objections to con- 
sidering the term Word, in the beginning of John, to 
mean a person. To me they are sufficient to make 
me reject such an hypothesis ; but I leave each one to 
judge for himself. How then is it to be interpreted ? 



60 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

I shall go on to paraphrase it in the manner of Dr. 
Doddridge. Justice cannot be done to it in a transla- 
tion, as by the arrangement of the genders, in Greek, 
to correspond to the terminations of words instead of 
the nature of things, Word, in that language, is mascu- 
line, though the name of a thing, and has masculine 
pronouns, adjectives and articles, to agree with it. 

I would first premise, that whatever there is peculiar 
in this introduction to John's Gospel, cannot be vital 
to salvation, because the Gospel of John was written 
long after the rest, and they were not collected in one 
volume for many ages afterwards, so that thousands of 
men were made Christians, and lived and died such, 
without knowing one word of the first fourteen verses 
of John's Gospel. 

I would premise, moreover, that in the view that I 
shall give of this passage, I shall make John the inter- 
preter of his own writings. I shall go to the introduc- 
tion to his first Epistle, for an explanation of the 
introduction to his Gospel. The same thing which 
he there speaks of in the masculine gender, he introdu- 
ces, in his Epistle, in the neuter, and in the feminine. 
" That which was from the beginning, which we have 
heard, and which we have seen with our eyes, which 
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 
concerning the Word of life ; for the Life was mani- 
fested, and we have seen it," literally her, " and bear 
witness and show unto you that eternal life, which," 
literally she, " was with the Father and was manifested 
to us." Now it is evident from this, that what is 
called the "Word" in the Gospel, is called in the 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 61 

Epistle the " Word of life." Then it is called " the 
Life," which in Greek is feminine. But still she was 
with God, under the same phraseology that the Word 
was, and was manifested to men. Now it seems im- 
possible, to my mind, to believe that John meant to 
say, that " eternal Life" was a person with God, and 
in God ; yet it is just as strongly asserted, as that the 
Word was. The u word of life," and " eternal life," 
which was with the Father, and was manifested to the 
disciples, we have no difficulty in interpreting to mean 
the doctrines and commission of Christ, which he 
received from God, and which w T ere the means of con- 
ferring eternal life on those who received them. Why 
then should we have any hesitation in taking the term 
Word in the same signification, which dwelt in Christ, 
or, to use a more familiar phrase, became incarnate in 
him ? I take then the whole passage to mean this. 
The word which God spake by Christ, the revelation 
which he made of himself, through him, is nothing new, 
but is a part of a series of revelations running back to the 
very beginning of all things. The same Almighty 
Power, and Perfect Wisdom, which were displayed in 
the miracles and doctrines of Christ, were first mani- 
fested in the works of the physical creation : u By the 
word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the 
host of them by the breath of his mouth." The next 
manifestation was in the creation of the soul of man, 
to which he imparted, in a fainter degree than that in 
which they exist in himself, some of his own attributes : 
" The inspiration of the Almighty hath given him un- 
derstanding." u In him, or rather it, was life, and that 
6 



62 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

life was the light of men. But the light shone in 
darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." 
The revelation which God made of himself in the 
material world, and in the soul of man, was not under- 
stood, and the world fell into idolatry. The next 
revelation that God made of himself, was to the Jewish 
nation, by which he took a particular people and made 
them his own, brought them into an especial relation to 
himself. After a long interval, he visited his own 
people by another revelation, but they did not 
recognize him in it. He sent John the Baptist, to 
announce the coming of his last and greatest revelation 
to man ; and at length in Christ himself, that Light, 
which had ever been shining, burst out with greater 
brilliancy ; that Life, which had ever been the source 
of intellectual energy to men, received a more perfect 
development ; that Word, which had been sounding in 
the ears of mortals since the beginning of time, from the 
works of God, from the heavens above and from the earth 
beneath, received a more full and articulate annunciation. 
Such I believe to be the meaning of the introduction 
to John's Gospel. I think it satisfies the language, at 
the same time that it is more consistent and probable 
in itself. It is more simple, and agrees better with the 
acknowledged facts of the case. If you interpret the 
Word to mean a person, then you involve yourself in 
the most inextricable difficulties and perplexities. If 
you identify him with the Son, the second Person 
of a Trinity, and make him, according to the common 
phraseology, the Divine nature of Christ, you find 
it to correspond neither with the one nor the other. 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 63 

You not only create plurality in the Divine Being, but 
you introduce a Person into the Divine Being not 
possessed of the essential attributes of Deity. The 
Son is not omniscient. He knows not when the day 
of judgment is to be. The Son is not self-existent, 
but a derived, dependent being. ct As the Father hath 
life in himself, so hath he given the Son to have life in 
himself." He was dependent, not on the Father, 
which would be inadmissible, but on u the only true 
God," for the glory he had before the foundation of 
the world. After the termination of his mediatorial 
office, the Son is to be subjected, not to the Father, 
but to God, that God may be all in all. Such attri- 
butes must the Word possess, if you identify it with 
what is called the Son in the Trinity. 

Quite as difficult do you find it, when you attempt 
to identify such a person as the Word in Christ. Ac- 
cording to the strange phraseology of Trinitarianism, 
the Word, which was a Divine Person in God, be- 
comes a Divine nature in Christ. How he should be 
represented as losing his personality in becoming in- 
carnate, is not readily comprehended, unless from fore- 
sight of the difficulties which would be involved in 
supposing that Christ was made up of two persons, as 
well as two natures. But the instinctive good sense of 
mankind has avoided the inconceivable idea that Christ 
was composed of two persons, one finite and the other 
infinite, by substituting the more indefinite word nature. 
But nature, in this connection, if it mean any more than 
office, function, capacity, must mean persons, and if so, 
what were the elements of the complex person, Christ ? 



64 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

An infinite Spirit, which filled immensity and eternity, 
and a finite spirit, which began to exist in Bethlehem, 
in the days of Augustus Caesar, — a consciousness 
which embraced all things that can be known in the 
Universe, and another consciousness which embraced 
that narrow circle of ideas only, which is taken in by 
the human faculties ; a will which could sway the Uni- 
verse, and one which could only act through a human 
body. Is it possible than any person can believe in 
the amalgamation of such contradictory elements into 
one Person ? The human, of course, must be lost in 
the Divine, like a drop of water in the ocean. But 
what adds to the wonder, this amalgamation is not 
permanent. The real person of Christ, in which he 
speaks and teaches, has the power of sliding out of one 
into the other, whenever he chooses, and of sometimes 
speaking as God, and sometimes as man, without giving 
any notice that he makes the change ; so that his hearers 
and readers were, and are, according to this hypothe- 
sis, obliged to pick out of his discourses, at their own 
discretion, those things w r hich he said as God, and 
those things which he said as man, and what he said as 
both God and man, — of course, are always in the dark 
as to what they are taking on divine, and what on hu- 
man authority. 

I adopt the interpretation of the impersonality of the 
Word, because it corresponds best with the general 
representations of the Scriptures. Jesus was born, 
and increased in wisdom, which could hardly happen 
to a being of whose person an omniscient God made 
a part. He commenced teaching, not because any 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 65 

Divine Power made a constitutional element of him, 
but because he was visited by the Spirit of God. u He 
was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness," which 
contradicts the idea of the Word's being a person. 
It is said of him, " that God giveth the spirit unto him 
not by measure." He says of himself, " I, by the spirit 
of God, cast out devils." If there were such a person 
in Christ as the Word, he was certainly quiescent 
during his whole ministry ; and if the Holy Ghost is a 
person, he is the person who was in Christ and 
wrought his miracles. And if the Holy Ghost is not 
a person, and by the Spirit is meant the power of God, 
then God, without distinction of Persons, wrought his 
miracles, which is perfectly consistent with the Scrip- 
tures, but destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. This 
is precisely in accordance with the representation of 
Peter. u Ye men of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus 
of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by miracles, and 
signs, and w T onders, which God did by him in the 
midst of you, as ye yourselves do know." On another 
occasion, u How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with 
the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing 
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, 
for God was with him." From all these passages, and 
many others that I might cite, it seems evident, that 
what is in the introduction of John called the Word, 
means nothing more than the Divine aid and power, 
that full measure of wisdom and control over nature, 
which is, in other places, called u the fulness of the 
Spirit," and which fitted Jesus for his great office of 
Mediator between God and men. 
6* 



66 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

This personification of the attributes of God, and 
representation of them as God himself, was not intro- 
duced by John in his Gospel. It was familiar to the 
Jews before. It is found in the Old Testament, and 
in the Apocrypha. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, 
Wisdom is personified, just as the Word is in the Gos- 
pel of John. But by the structure of the Hebrew 
language, Wisdom is feminine, just as Wisdom is mas- 
culine in Greek. She is represented as a female, 
going up and down the earth, endeavoring to persuade 
men to be wise. u Doth not Wisdom cry, and under- 
standing put forth her voice ? She standeth in the top 
of high places, by the way, in the places of the paths. 
She crieth at the gates, at the entering in of the city, 
at the coming in of the doors. Unto you, O men, I 
call, and my voice is unto the sons of men. O ye simple, 
understand wisdom ; and ye fools, be ye of an under- 
standing heart." 

That no real person is intended, appears from the 
whole structure of the chapter ; from the word under- 
standing, which is introduced as synonymous, and espe- 
cially from these verses : u Receive my instruction, 
and not silver ; and knowledge rather than choice gold. 
For wisdom is better than rubies ; and all the things 
that may be desired are not to be compared to it." 

She then goes on to identify herself with wisdom as 
it exists in the minds of men, and there seems to be a 
strong parallelism between the mode of speech here 
used, and one clause of the introduction of John. " In 
him was life, and the life was the light of men." What 
is Wisdom in the one case, is Word in the other. 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 67 

" By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By 
me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the 
earth." 

Afterwards she identifies herself with wisdom in the 
mind of God. As she had represented herself as 
having a personal form, as the monitor of mankind and 
the counsellor of princes, so she gives herself a per- 
sonal existence with God, from all eternity, because 
God is the primeval fountain of all wisdom. In the 
same manner, John represents the Word as " being 
with God, and being God." Wisdom proceeds, u The 
Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, be- 
fore his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, 
from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When 
there were no depths, I w T as brought forth ; when there 
were no fountains abounding with water. Before 
the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I 
brought forth ; while as yet he had not made the 
earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust 
of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was 
there." The reader here will observe, that Wisdom 
is not represented as being the agent in the creation of 
the world, but only as being present. In the introduc- 
tion to the Gospel of John, the divine attributes, per- 
sonified under the term Word, are represented as the 
actual Agent in bringing all things into existence, or are 
identified with God himself, because, in the Old Testa- 
ment, God is represented as having spoken all things into 
being. u By the word of the Lord were the heavens 
made, and all the host of them by the breath of his 
mouth." Wisdom proceeds : " When he established 



68 FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 

the clouds above ; when he strengthened the fountains 
of the deep ; when he gave the sea his decree, that 
the waters should not pass his commandment ; when he 
appointed the foundations of the earth ; then was I by 
him, as one brought up with him ; and I was daily his 
delight, rejoicing always before him ; rejoicing in the 
habitable part of his earth ; and my delights were 
with the sons of men." That all this is a mere person- 
ification, appears not only from the whole strain of the 
passage, but from what follows. u Now, therefore, 
hearken unto me, O ye children ; for blessed are they 
that keep my ways. Hear instruction^ and be toise, 
and refuse it no/." 

In the book of Ecclesiasticus, a part of the Apocry- 
pha, composed several ages before Christ, but after the 
closing of the Old Testament, we have a similar per- 
sonification of Wisdom. M Wisdom shall praise her- 
self, and shall glory in the midst of her people. In the 
congregation of the Most High shall she open her 
mouth, and triumph before his power. / came out of 
the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth as 
a cloud. I dwelt in high places, and my throne is the 
cloudy pillar. I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, 
and walked in the bottom of the deep. In the waves 
of the sea, and in all the earth, and in every people 
and nation, I got a possession." This, the reader will 
perceive, bears a close analogy to the phraseology of 
John, in which he calls the Word u the Light which 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world." What 
succeeds, bears an equally strong analogy to that part 
of John's introduction, in which he says, that divine 



FIRST CHAPTER OF JOHN. 69 

illumination, though pervading the minds of the whole 
human race, was peculiarly imparted to the Jews. 
u He came to his own, and his own received him not." 
Wisdom goes on to say : " Lo, the Creator of all 
things gave me a commandment, and he that made 
me, caused my tabernacle to rest, and said ; Let 
thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine inheritance in 
Israel." 

There is likewise in the Wisdom of Solomon, a per- 
sonification of the Word of God, represented as sent 
from heaven, a gigantic destroyer of the Egyptians, on 
the night when all their first-born were destroyed. 
" Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven 
out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into 
the midst of a land of destruction. And brought thine 
unfeigned commandment, as a sharp sword, and stand- 
ing up, filled all things with death, and it touched the 
heaven, but it stood upon the earth." 

From these quotations the reader will perceive that 
the personification of the attributes of God, in the 
Gospel of John, was nothing new, but was already 
known to the Jews in their own sacred and theologi- 
cal writings. 



LECTURE IV. 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
ISAIAH, IX. 6. 

FOR UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN, UNTO US A SON IS GIVEN, AND THE GOV- 
ERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER ; AND HIS NAME SHALL BE 
CALLED WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, 
PRINCE OF PEACE. 

There are few passages in the Bible, which have 
been so often quoted to prove the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity as this. It is proper then, that, in treating of that 
subject, we should give this text a particular consider- 
ation. 

Before entering into the discussion, however, it will 
be proper to premise, that we go into the Old Testa- 
ment, for arguments in favor of the Trinity, with the 
strongest presumption against the probability of finding 
any there, from the fact that no such doctrine was ever 
discovered in it by the Jews themselves. During the 
fifteen hundred years of their national existence, no 
idea of a Trinity ever entered the mind of any pious 
descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and no 
scholar of Moses ever thought of giving any other than 
the most strict and literal construction to the first of all 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 71 

the commandments : u Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your 
God, Jehovah is One." This was long before the 
hostility sprung up, which has existed between the Jews 
and Christians, on account of the fact that the Chris- 
tians have received as the Messiah, him whom the Jew 7 s 
rejected and crucified. If there w r ere such a doctrine, 
it must certainly have been revealed in the language of 
the Old Testament. This language was the vernacular 
tongue of the Jews. If it was revealed, and was an 
important doctrine, then it was important that they 
should understand it. But they did not understand it. 
The descendants of those Jews, who have inherited 
those Scriptures, and who derive their religion solely 
from them, are as strenuous as were their forefathers 
on the fundamental article of their faith. And is it 
a supposable case, that those who live in a remote age, 
and speak another language, should discover a funda- 
mental doctrine in the Hebrew Scriptures, which the 
Hebrews themselves, who spoke the language, did not 
discover ; a doctrine, too, which apparently contradicts 
the first principles of their religion contained in their 
Scriptures ? 

If the doctrine of the Trinity were true and impor- 
tant, we could scarce conceive of any way in which 
Moses could have discharged his office as the lawgiver of 
the Jews, in a manner more calculated to mislead them. 
At the very commencement of his mission, he repre- 
sents the Deity to have appeared to him under the si- 
militude of a burning bush, and to have given the name 
by which he wished to make himself known to the 
Jews, as "I AM," a name which in itself expresses 



72 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

the simplest mode of personal existence, and into which 
it is impossible for any idea of plurality to creep. I 
know of no language which he could have used, which 
would have conveyed the idea more definitely, not only 
of an essential, but a personal unity. It is true, that 
the attempt has been made, to deduce a different con- 
clusion from one passage in Genesis, where God is said 
to have deliberated about making man, and about the 
treatment of him after he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. 
" Let us make man in our image, and after our like- 
ness." But it is only necessary to observe, that Moses 
represents the person who makes the speech, in the sin- 
gular number ; " And God said ; " showing plainly 
that there is no inconsistency meant to be conveyed, w T ith 
the personal unity of God, but that it is a mere 
idiom of speech, not peculiar indeed to the Hebrew, 
but common to all languages. There is not a monarch 
in Europe, who might not be proved to be plural, on the 
same principles, for they all say, " We." Editors of 
newspapers even, adopt the same form of speech, and 
we all, in our most common intercourse, address each 
other in the plural number ; and if idioms were always 
to be taken in proof of facts, it might be proved that 
we believed each other to be made up of many per- 
sons, when we say to each other : " You are good, or, 
you are wise, &c." The Germans carry this matter 
further, and address each other as not only in the 
plural number, but in the third person. u They are 
good, they are wise," meaning the very person whom 
they address. Is there anything like plurality intimated 
in the following most solemn and impressive language ? 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 73 

" And God spake to Moses, and said unto him, I am 
Jehovah. And / appeared unto Abraham, and unto 
Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, 
but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." 
Then, as to the Deity of the Messiah being a doctrine 
of Moses, let us read the following prophecy, which 
foretells him, if anything in his writings does predict 
him. " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a 
prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like 
unto me ; unto him shall ye hearken." Now, certainly 
no Jew could ever have deduced from this, that the 
Messiah should participate in the Divine Nature, since 
God w^as to raise him up from his brethren like unto 
Moses. 

Besides all these express declarations, how often is 
the personal unity of God asserted, by implication, in 
the Old Testament, and of course his personal plural- 
ity denied ! In how many hundreds and hundreds of 
instances is Jehovah introduced as saying " I," M my," 
u me." These are all personal pronouns, and appli- 
cable to only one person. How many addresses are 
there in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms, 
to God in the singular number, with the pronouns 
u thee " and " thou " ? Every one of these is an 
argument for the personal Unity of God, and goes to 
show, that any other doctrine was not so much as 
known or thought of. And yet we hear, at the present 
day, as Scriptural and legitimate, such ascriptions as 
this : " Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the 
Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and 
ever shall be, world without end." In the beginning ! 
7 



74 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

When did it begin ? There is nothing like this in the 
Old Testament, so there are near four thousand years 
taken at once from the beginning, which makes the 
beginning very late in the history of the world, accord- 
ing to my estimation. Then there was no glory 
ascribed to the Holy Ghost for nearly four hundred 
years after Christ, so that there are four hundred years 
taken from the beginning of Christianity, before this 
mode of worship came into practice in the Church. 
All we can say of the tripersonal nature of God, as an 
article of faith with the Jewish nation, is, that there 
is no trace of any such belief in the Old Testa- 
ment, and that the general representation there is of 
one Person, and of one only. 

But the passage we are examining this evening, is con- 
sidered as a prophecy of the incarnation of the second 
Person of a Trinity in Jesus of Nazareth. " Unto us 
a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting 
Father, Prince of Peace." This is thought to prove, 
that Jesus of Nazareth had two natures, one human and 
the other divine. I shall now state my reasons for not 
acquiescing in such a conclusion. And my first reason 
is, that there is nothing in the passage which touches 
the nature of the child at all, or intimates that its nature 
has anything peculiar in it. It only gives its name. 
It will be recollected, that this prophecy is nowhere 
applied to Jesus, nor claimed for him, by any writer in 
the New Testament. u Unto us a child is born, unto 
us a son is given." The question instantly occurs, 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 75 

Who gave it ? The answer is, God. And for what 
purpose ? " The government shall be upon his shoul- 
der." He is to be a king, and rule over his people 
for their good. "Of the increase of his government 
there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and 
upon his kingdom, to order it and establish it, with 
judgment and justice, from henceforth, even forever." 
Jehovah born, and seated upon the throne of David ! 
Impossible. And is the prince, w T ho is to be thus ex- 
alted, to do all this by his own power ? By no means. 
"The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." 
The only thing, which has any appearance of intima- 
ting any superiority of nature in this child that is to be 
born, is, that " he will order and establish his throne 
forever." But we find that this proves nothing, for the 
very same language is used by God to David con- 
cerning Solomon. u And it shall come to pass, when 
thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy 
fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which 
shall be of thy sons, and T will establish his kingdom. 
He shall build me a house, and I will establish his 
throne forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be 
my Son ; and I will not take my mercy away from him, 
as I took it from him that was before thee ; but I will 
settle him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and 
his throne shall be established for ever more." If the 
words " forever," and " evermore," prove a divine 
nature in the child spoken of by Isaiah, so they must 
likewise prove a divine nature in Solomon ; and if 
they do not in Solomon, neither do they in the son that 
is to be born, and the child that is given. It may be as 



76 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

well to remark, as we pass, the use of the terms 
" son of God," and "Father," as applied to God in 
correspondence with it. A pretty strong case might 
be made out from this passage for the divinity of Sol- 
omon. " I will be his Father, and he shall be my son, 
and I will establish his throne forever." Such pas- 
sages ought to convince us how slow we ought to be in 
conforming the nature of things to the strong figures of 
the Bible. 

My second objection is, that the epithet "mighty 
God," is so far from proving anything as to the nature 
of the child to which it is prophetically given, that it 
is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, to departed spirits, and 
to brave men. It is perhaps material to say, that the 
particle "the," prefixed to mighty God, has no coun- 
tenance in the original. The word el is not the espe- 
cial name of Jehovah. It is from a root, which signi- 
fies strength and power, such as is usually possessed 
by the heroes of the early history of every country. 
It was therefore applied not only to God, but to heroes 
and to kings. It is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, king of 
Babylon. The prophet is describing the conquests of 
Nebuchadnezzar, and predicting that he would subdue 
Egypt. Ezekiel upbraids Pharaoh for his pride, and 
tells him that he shall be given into the hand of the 
mighty conqueror of the nations. u I have therefore 
delivered him into the hand of the mighty one," lit- 
erally, mighty God, " of the nations, and he shall 
deal with him." If mighty god, proved a divine 
nature in the person to whom it was applied, then 
Nebuchadnezzar had a divine nature. In the next 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 

chapter it is applied by the prophet to the shades of 
departed kings and heroes, in the deep and dark abodes 
of the dead. Pharaoh is represented as going down to 
the place of the dead, a vast world under the earth, 
corresponding in extent with the space above the earth, 
and there he is met by the great and powerful who 
had gone before him. cc The strong among the mighty 
shall speak to thee out of the midst of hell ; " liter- 
ally, " the mighty gods shall speak to thee out of 
the midst of hell." Now it is in vain to speak of 
mighty gods being in hell, but yet it must be so, if el 
gebor is made to mean God, in the ninth chapter of 
Isaiah. 

Another instance of the use of this word for human 
beings, when no divinity can possibly be intended, is 
found in the forty-first chapter of Job. Speaking of the 
Behemoth, he says : cc When he raiseth himself up, 
the mighty are afraid ; " literally, " the mighty gods are 
afraid." Now, no one would think of interpreting this 
to mean persons possessing a divine nature. It merely 
means the most courageous of mankind, the mightiest 
heroes, are afraid to encounter Behemoth when he is 
roused up. 

Now it is the same term precisely, which is applied 
to the child who is to be born, and to exercise the 
kingly function, and it designates one of the qualities 
which is to fit him for the office, — that he is to be a 
hero, to lead in difficulty and danger. 

A third objection is found in the epithet, Everlasting 
Father. This proves too much for Trinitarianism itself. 
That theory affirms the incarnation of the second Per- 
7* 



78 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

son in the Trinity, the Son, but denies the incarna- 
tion of the Father, and denies the incarnation of the 
whole Deity, without distinction of persons. But 
if the child is God, because it is called mighty god, 
then it is the everlasting Father, because it is called 
Everlasting Father. If this phrase prove any incar- 
nation, it is that of the Father. But the incarnation 
of the Father, according to the Trinitarian hypoth- 
esis, would overthrow the whole economy of redemp- 
tion. According to that theory, it was necessary, nay, 
was a matter of compact, that the Son, the second 
Person of the Trinity, should come upon earth and 
assume our nature, that he might, in that nature, sat- 
isfy the justice of the Father, and make atonement for 
the sins of the world. But if the everlasting Father 
came on earth, then there was no one left to whom the 
atonement could be made, unless it were the Son, and 
that would be reversing the order of the compact. 
So far then from sustaining the doctrine of the Trinity, 
this epithet, and of course the whole passage, contra- 
dicts it. 

As an appellation of a sovereign, as this child is rep- 
resented to be destined to be, it is far more rational 
to interpret it of him in that capacity, and make him 
the perpetual father of his people, not of course defi- 
ning perpetual in the sense of eternal, but, as is the 
case in most of the instances in which the term ever- 
lasting occurs, of a duration to continue as long as the 
subject exists. The everlasting hills, means the hills 
which shall continue as long as the earth. The servant 
who had his ears bored, was to be his master's forever, 
that is, as long as he should live. So, according to 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 

Hebrew idiom, the king, who should be a perpetual 
Father to his people, would reign over them with pa- 
ternal care as long as he should live ; intimating, how- 
ever, that his reign would be long, and perhaps that its 
influences might last much longer. 

Abstracting then from all theological questions 
which have been raised upon this passage, it would 
merely amount to this : The prophet declares that 
there is then born a child of the royal family, who is to 
be peculiarly gifted and qualified to resuscitate the fallen 
fortunes of the Jews, and therefore shall be called 
admirable, wise, courageous, benignant, peaceful. And 
this is all ; and it has been thought by some of the 
most judicious commentators to refer to Hezekiah, who 
was then, it is computed, about eleven years old. 
There is no intimation in the New Testament that 
either Christ, or his Apostles, considered it to refer to 
him. 

But all appearance of teaching anything as to the 
nature of the child will vanish, if we consider the habits 
of the Jews as to naming their children. This they 
did, either with reference to their personal qualities, 
or what they were destined to accomplish, or, more fre- 
quently, from the circumstances of their birth. So far 
is the name of God from proving anything as to the 
nature of the person to whom it is given, that almost all 
the names in the Old Testament beginning or ending in 
eZ, are some combination of the name of God ; and all 
ending in jab,, are combinations of the most sacred 
name of God, Jehovah. The list of names at the 
end of most of our large Bibles, will throw great light 



80 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

upon this matter. Thus, David's eldest brother was 
called Eliab, which signifies " God the Father," or 
" God of my Father." The name of the prophet 
Elijah, in Hebrew, is " God the Lord." Ishmael, 
" God that hears." Lemuel, " God with them." 
Abiel, "God my Father." Now if the giving of 
these names is allowed to prove anything as to the es- 
sential nature of the children to whom they are given, 
there have been nearly as many incarnations in the Jew- 
ish theology as there have been in that of the Hindoos. 
But the fact is, that all these names prove nothing as to 
the nature of the children to whom they were given. It 
was customary for Hebrew parents to give their child- 
ren names from the circumstances under which they 
were born, either of prosperity or adversity, which they 
considered as coming immediately from God. Hagar, 
at the command of the angel, called her son Ishmael, 
or " God that hears," because the Lord had heard her 
in her affliction. And so it is throughout the Old Tes- 
tament. 

The most remarkable instance, perhaps, is recorded 
in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. About the year 
seven hundred and thirty-seven before Christ, Rezin, 
king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, became 
confederate, and invaded Judah. Ahaz was then king 
of Judah, a man of weak character ; and although, in 
the main, a worshipper of Jehovah, yet sometimes 
addicted to idolatry. He was much alarmed at the 
danger that threatened his country ; and Isaiah the 
prophet was sent to encourage and console him with 
the assurance, that this attempt upon his capital should 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 

be in vain. " Take heed," says he, " and be quiet ; 
fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of 
these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin 
with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because 
Syria, Epbraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken 
evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against 
Judah and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for 
us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of 
Tabeal : Thus saith the Lord God ; It shall not stand, 
neither shall it come to pass." Ahaz is not much en- 
couraged by this message, and the prophet, to confirm 
him, requests him to ask some token of God that what 
he promises shall be done, some outward manifestation 
of Divine power. But Ahaz refuses to ask a sign. 
" I will not ask," says he, " neither will I tempt the 
Lord." The prophet answers: " Hear ye now, O 
house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary 
men ; but will ye weary my God also ? Therefore, 
the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; Behold a virgin 
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may 
know," or until he shall know, u to choose the good and 
refuse the evil. For before the child shall know to 
refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou 
abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her kings." 

Here, then, is a child to be born, as a sign of de- 
liverance to Ahaz, and to be called Immanuel. And 
why ? Because he w 7 as to be an incarnation of Jeho- 
vah ? By no means ; but because God was to defend 
and deliver his people before he should grow up to know 
good and evil. The nature of the child was to have 



82 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

nothing to do with his name, nor was it on account 
of anything that the child was to do, that the name 
Immanuel was to be given to it, but on account of 
something that was to be done by God, before the 
child should be old enough to discern good and evil. 
The whole matter turns upon the time that was to elapse 
before the country would be fully relieved of her two 
enemies, and it is limited to the time in which a young 
woman, then unmarried, should be married, have a son, 
and that son should grow up to an age in w 7 hich he 
might distinguish between good and evil. 

In the very next chapter, we have a similar symbolic 
name applied to another child, — many theological 
scholars have thought, the same child. At any rate, the 
name of the child refers to the same event. " More- 
over, the Lord said unto me, Take thou a great roll, 
and write in it with a man's pen, concerning Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz. And I took me faithful witnesses to 
record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, the son of 
Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she 
conceived and bare a son. Then said the Lord unto 
me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz," speed to 
the prey, haste to the spoil. " For before the child shall 
have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, 
the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall 
be taken away before the king of Assyria." Here 
then are two symbolic names applied to two children, 
or perhaps to one child, to symbolize and be a pledge 
of the same event, that the two kings of Syria and 
Israel should be so pressed by the king of Assyria, 
that they should abandon Judea, and leave the Jews in 
peace. 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 

I am not unaware, that a large portion of the Chris- 
tian Church has considered the naming of the child, 
Immanuel, a prophecy of Christ, and an assertion, 
that, superadded to his human, he should have a divine 
nature ; but as far as I can see, without the least reason. 
Such a prophecy would not have answered the very 
purpose for which it was given, as a sign to Ahaz. 
" How," asks Professor Stuart, of Andover, " how 
could the birth of Jesus, which happened seven hun- 
dred and forty-two years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, 
that within three years his country should be freed from 
its enemies ? Such a child, as it would seem, w T as 
born at that period, for in the next chapter he is referred 
to twice, as if then present." 

But it is asked, How could this transaction be 
referred to by Matthew, in connection with the birth of 
Jesus ? " Now all this was done, that it might be ful- 
filled, w 7 hich was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, 
saying, A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth 
a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Now 
nothing of this kind really took place at the birth of 
Jesus, and no such name was given him. The name 
given to him by divine command, was Jesus. God 
never commanded him to be called Immanuel. All 
then, that this citation from the Old Testament can 
mean, is this, that there is a similarity between the two 
events. Is it asked how the writers of the New Tes- 
tament could quote the Old in that way, where there 
was no real prophecy ? We can only answer, that 
such was the custom at that time. The same accom- 
modation of the language of the Old Testament to the 



84 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

events of the New, occurs in the next chapter of 
Matthew. Joseph took the child and his mother, and 
fled to Egypt, and, after a season, returned ; and a 
reason of this movement is given, u that it might be 
fulfilled that was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, 
saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Now, at 
first sight, you might suppose this to be a prophecy, 
and a prophecy fulfilled. But if we look for it in the 
Old Testament, we find it in the eleventh chapter of 
Hosea. u When Israel was a child, I loved him, and 
called my son out of Egypt." Here, we all perceive, 
is no prophecy, but only an allusion to a historical fact, 
in which all the nation of Israel are called God's son. 
Still the same language is used in both cases, " That 
it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by 
the prophet, saying." Either both are prophecies, or 
the language does not prove either of them prophetical, 
but only to be quoted by way of coincidence and ac- 
commodation. 

The inference which all of you, who have listened 
attentively to this argument, must have drawn, is, that 
the evidence in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, to 
be derived from the seventh and ninth chapters of 
Isaiah, is exceedingly small in amount ; that small as 
it is, it will not bear examination for a moment. It 
follows, that if the Deity of Christ cannot be proved 
from what he was, and did, and said, in the New Testa- 
ment, the attempt to establish his Deity is hopeless. 

How little confidence is to be placed in arguments 
drawn from names, of which Jehovah makes a part, 
may be learned from a comparison of the sixth verse of 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 85 

the twenty-third chapter of Jeremiah, with the sixteenth 
verse of the thirty-third chapter. " In his days Judah 
shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety ; 
and this is the name whereby he shall be called, c Jeho- 
vah our righteousness. 5 " This is appealed to as a tri- 
umphant argument for the Deity of Christ, until the 
reader passes on to the thirty-third chapter, and there 
he finds the same name applied to Jerusalem ! "In 
those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall 
dwell safely ; and this is the name wherewith she shall 
be called, ' The Lord our righteousness. 5 '• 

What the Jews really thought, as to the unity of 
God and the Deity of the Messiah, may perhaps be 
learned as accurately as from any other source, from 
two visions, which I am now about to recite, one from 
the sixth chapter of Isaiah, and one from Daniel. 
" In the year that Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord 
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train 
filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphims : each 
one had six wings ; with twain he covered his feet, and 
with twain he covered his face, and with twain he did 
fly. And one cried unto another and said, Holy, 
Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts : the whole earth is 
full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at 
the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled 
with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me ! for 1 am un- 
done, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in 
the midst of a people of unclean lips ; for mine eyes 
have seen the king, the Lord of hosts." Here then is 
the Deity, as he was conceived of by the Jews, one 
indivisible being, seated like a king upon a throne 



86 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Is there the least hint of anything like a Trinity about 
him ? Not the least shadow. 

The other vision is in the seventh chapter of Daniel : 
CC I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the 
Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as 
snow, and the hair of his head like the fine w r ool : 
his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as 
burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth 
from before him : thousand thousands ministered unto 
him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before 
him. I saw, in the night visions, and behold, one like 
the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven, and 
came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near 
before him. And there was given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
guages, should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting 
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom 
that which shall not be destroyed." 

If there be any prophecy of Christ in the Old Tes- 
tament, this is it, and I leave any one to say, if there 
is not a sufficient distinction kept up between the An- 
cient of days, on whom myriads attended, and the 
person in human form, who came near before him, and 
received from the Ancient of days, dominion, and glory, 
and a kingdom ? 

Perhaps there will be no more appropriate place, in 
the course of these lectures, than this, to notice certain 
other passages of the Old Testament which have been 
regarded as prophetic of Christ, and have been thought 
at the same time to assert the doctrine of his Deity. 
One of the strongest of these is found in the third chap- 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 87 

ter of Malachi. u Behold, I will send my messenger, 
and he shall prepare the way before me ; and the Lord, 
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even 
the Messenger of the covenant, in whom ye delight ; 
behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But 
who may abide the day of his coming ? and who shall 
stand when he appeareth ? for he is like a refiner's fire 
and a fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and 
purifier of silver ; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, 
and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer 
unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall 
the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the 
Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. 
And I will come near to you in judgment, saith the 
Lord of Hosts." 

After the most careful examination of this passage, 
it is difficult to find any certain evidence that the Mes- 
siah is referred to at all in it. There are circumstances 
in it, which make the whole passage agree much better 
with the old dispensation than with the new, and lead 
the candid inquirer to refer whatever events are pre- 
dicted in it, to some reformation in the times of the se- 
cond temple, before the destruction of the Levitical 
priesthood, rather than to the new economy. This 
chapter is nearly connected with the preceding, and they 
both seem to relate to the degeneracy of the sacerdo- 
tal order, and the neglect of the appointed offerings by 
the people. "Will a man rob God? yet ye have 
robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed 
thee ? In tythes and pfferings. Ye are cursed with 
a curse ; for ye have robbed me, even this whole 
nation. Bring ye all the tythes into the storehouse, 



88 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me 
now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open 
you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a bless- 
ing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." 
To carry this forward, and interpret it of the times of 
the Messiah, and of course to give it a spiritual mean- 
ing, seems to be wresting Scripture, rather than inter- 
preting it. The new temple was just built, and the 
worship of God by sacrifice was just reestablished, 
and the people had not yet become accustomed to pay 
the tythes ordained in the Mosaic institute, which were 
necessary to maintain divine service. The priests, too, 
had lately returned from captivity, and had brought 
with them wives, which they, in violation of an express 
law, had married from among the heathen, as we learn 
from the preceding chapter. " Judah hath dealt treach- 
erously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and 
in Jerusalem : for Judah hath profaned the holiness 
of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the 
daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the 
man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of 
the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offer- 
ing unto the Lord of hosts," meaning of course the 
priests. It was the duty of the priest, not only to offer 
sacrifice, but to study the law, and honestly to interpret 
it to the people. In this duty the priests had failed. 
" But ye have departed out of the way ; ye have caused 
many to stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted the 
covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. For the 
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should 
seek the law at his mouth ; for he is the messenger of 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 89 

the Lord of hosts." In the midst of all this complaint 
of the degeneracy of the priesthood, and the irregular- 
ities of the temple service, God promises, or rather 
threatens, to bring about a reformation. " Behold, I 
will send rny messenger, and he shall prepare the way 
before me." As the priest is called, just before, the 
" messenger of God," so, I am inclined to think, mes- 
senger means the same here ; that God is about to bring 
about reform, by introducing into the temple a pious, 
resolute, and energetic priest. " And the Lord whom 
ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, and the 
messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in, behold 
he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." The Lord 
and the messenger of the covenant, not even, as our 
translators have given it. Such I believe to be the 
meaning of this passage, so often quoted as prophetic 
of Christ. 

There is a passage in the prophecy of Zechariah, in 
which Jehovah is thought to identify himself with 
Christ upon the cross, from the fact that he represents 
himself as having been pierced. I shall show the con- 
nection in which it stands, and then leave every one to 
judge of the probability of such an original reference. 
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and 
supplication ; and they shall look on one whom they 
have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one 
mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for 
him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." 

The first consideration which suggests itself in de- 
termining whether Jehovah identifies himself with Christ 
8* 



90 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

upon the cross, is the fact, that Christ was not pierced, 
in the sense here obviously intended, till the spirit had 
left the body, and the body of Jesus was no more than 
any other body forsaken of life and sensation. The 
spirit, whether human or divine, had left it, and could 
no longer be concerned in anything that was done to 
it. To pierce, in the phraseology of ancient warfare, 
was to penetrate the body by spear or sword. The 
only way in which Christ was pierced in this sense, was 
with the spear after he was dead. His spiritual part 
had no concern in that. Nor could Jehovah have had, 
supposing him ever to have animated that body. Such 
an interpretation then, of this passage, is obviously 
strained and forced. The only way in which Jehovah 
could be pierced, is in a figurative sense, in the sense 
of being grieved, just as it is said of men, when their 
feelings are injured, that they are ivounded. God was 
pleased in the Old Testament often to represent himself 
with human sensibilities. u Forty years long was I 
grieved with this generation, and said ; It is a people 
that do err in their heart, and they have not known 
my ways." The passage we are considering seems 
to be a parallel case. God represents himself in this 
chapter, as visiting the people of Jerusalem with a 
siege, in punishment of their sins, and for a w T hile par- 
alyzing their means of defence. But afterwards he 
turns to be their helper. cc And it shall come to pass, 
that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come 
against Jerusalem." This is the verse immediately pre- 
ceding the passage we are considering. In it we per- 
ceive the reason why he will turn and defend his people, 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 91 

because they will repent. "And I will pour upon 
the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jeru- 
salem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they 
shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they 
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, 
and he shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in 
bitterness for his first born." 

To me, it seems to be doing great violence to lan- 
guage, to mix up a siege of Jerusalem, in the time of 
the prophets, with the death of Christ, which took 
place four hundred years after. It has been thought to 
favor the application of this passage to Christ, that 
Jehovah speaks of himself in the first person, and then 
in the third: " They shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced, and mourn for him." But the difficulty 
is no greater in the one case than in the other. There 
is no more reason for a change of persons, if he speaks 
of himself as the Messiah, than if he speaks of him- 
self absolutely. The obvious meaning is, " They 
shall mourn for him whom they have pierced." This 
is not applicable to the Jews concerning Christ. His 
murderers did not relent. 

Another passage is found in the fifth chapter of Micah. 
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou belittle 
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall 
he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel, 
whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." 
The pertinency of this passage turns upon the meaning 
of two words, the word translated "goings forth," and 
the word translated " everlasting." Now both of these 
are equivocal in their meaning. The word translated 



92 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

"goings forth," may mean "descent." The verb 
from which it originates, is thus translated in the seven- 
teenth chapter of Genesis : u and kings shall come out 
of thee," that is, descend from thee. The passage 
may mean therefore, " whose descent is from an an- 
cient family," or a family long distinguished. 

Then the word rendered "everlasting," is very far 
from meaning eternity. It generally means a long time, 
but not a time without beginning. It is the same word 
which is used by Isaiah when speaking of the antiquity 
of Tyre. u Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity 
is of ancient days." It is the same word which is 
found in the last verse of this very book of Micah. 
" Thou shalt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy 
to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers, 
from the days of old." The meaning of the passage 
we are considering, then, is very likely to be this : u A 
Ruler shall come from Bethlehem, whose descent is 
from high antiquity, even from the earliest periods of 
the world." 

Strong corroboration of the Deity of Christ is 
thought to be derived from the seventh verse of the 
thirteenth chapter of Zechariah. " Awake, O sword, 
against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my 
fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. Smite the shepherd, 
and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn my 
hand upon the little ones." This is said to be an ad- 
dress of the first Person of the Trinity to the second, 
as is shown by the significant phraseology, u the man 
that is my fellow." This includes both the divine 
and the human natures of Christ, " man " standing 



PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 93 

for the human, and " fellow " of Jehovah for the di- 
divine. But there are two features in this verse w T hich 
are inconsistent with this supposition. The first is, 
that the Person who speaks is the Lord of hosts. Now 
the Lord of hosts, even according to the Trinitarian hy- 
pothesis, is not a Person of the Trinity, but the whole 
Deity, without distinction of persons. Now the whole 
Deity cannot have for a fellow the second Person of the 
Trinity. If applicable to Christ then at all, it can be 
applicable to him only in his human nature, and of course 
can prove nothing as to his Deity. The nature of the 
person called u shepherd," is still further defined by 
the qualifying epithet u my," attached to it, taken in 
connection with the Person who applies it, " the Lord 
of hosts." The man^ whom the Lord of hosts calls 
his shepherd, cannot be the equal of the Lord of hosts. 
The epithet "fellow," then, must be restrained and 
defined by the connection in which it stands. That 
determines it to be applied to a person not Jehovah, 
but infinitely inferior to Jehovah. 

In making up our minds who was really meant, we 
must be decided partly by the context, and partly by 
the use of the word " shepherd " in the Old Testa- 
ment. Kings, even heathen kings, were called shep- 
herds in ancient times, both in the Bible and in classi- 
cal writers, because their care of their people resembled 
the shepherd's care of his flock. God is represented, 
by Isaiah, as saying of Cyrus, " He is my shepherd, 
and shall perform all my pleasure." The rulers of 
Israel, are called by Ezekiel, " the shepherds of Is- 
rael." " And the word of the Lord came unto me, 



94 PROPHECIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of 
Israel, and say unto them : Thus saith the Lord God 
unto the shepherds, Woe be to the shepherds of Is- 
rael that do feed themselves." The epithet "shepherd," 
applied to the rulers of Israel, enables us to see the 
reason why another epithet, u fellow of Jehovah," is 
applied to the person mentioned in the prophecy. 
Jehovah, according to the Jewish constitution, w 7 as 
the Supreme King of the nation of Israel, and its 
human king was therefore spoken of as the assessor of 
his throne. cc Jehovah said unto my lord, Sit on my 
right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool." Here, 
then, the king of Israel is represented as sitting on the 
throne at the side of Jehovah, and in this sense might 
be called his " fellow." The man then, that was God's 
shepherd, and the fellow of Jehovah, might be, and 
probably was, the reigning king of Israel. 

Such are the passages in the Old Testament which 
are alleged to prove the Deity of Christ. How far 
they prove the proposition they are brought to support^ 
all must judge for themselves. 



LECTURE V. 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

HEBREWS, I. 1, 2. 

GOD, WHO AT SUNDRY TIMES AND IN DIVERSE MANNERS, SPAKE IN TIMES 
PAST UNTO THE FATHERS BY THE PROPHETS, HATH IN THESE LAST DAYS 
SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON. 

There is no passage of the Bible, which presents 
to the common reader so many, and so great difficul- 
ties, as the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
There is scarcely a question of magnitude in all theo- 
logical inquiry, which is not brought in when any 
attempt is made to explain this portion of the sacred 
Scriptures. To enter into them all, would require, not 
a single lecture, but a whole volume. The only point 
with which we are immediately concerned, is the bear- 
ing it has upon the doctrine of the Trinity. In that 
relation we are now to consider it ; referring to 
other topics only as they are incidental to this. The 
Trinitarian, coming to this passage with his hypothesis 
of the two natures, imagines that he finds confirmation 
of it in every line. 

What is not applicable to him in his human nature, 



96 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 



is applicable to him in his divine nature ; and what 
is not explicable on the ground of either his human 
or divine nature, is explained of him in his complex 
nature, but in his mediatorial office. Armed with all 
these various hypotheses, which may be taken up and 
laid aside at will, he supposes that there is no part of 
this passage which may not be explained. " God has 
spoken to us by his Son " ; that is, in his mediatorial 
capacity. Christ "is appointed heir of all things." Who 
could be made heir of all things, but a Divine Person ? 
" By him God made the worlds." He, who made the 
worlds, must, of course, have existed before the worlds. 
This answers to his divine nature. " Who being the 
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his 
person, and upholding all things by the word of his 
power." What creature could be, and do all this ? 
" When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat 
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." This 
is applicable to his human nature ; that alone could 
suffer, that alone could be exalted. 

u Being made so much better than the angels, as he 
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than 
they." The Son of God, he who partakes of the 
divine nature, must, of course, be superior to the 
angels. " For unto which of the angels said he at any 
time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? 
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be 
to me a Son ? " Whom among the angels has God 
ever called his Son ? " And again, when he bringeth 
the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all 
the angels of God worship him." Who can be wor- 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 97 

shipped, but God, without idolatry? " And of the 
angels, he saith : Who maketh winds his angels, and 
flames of fire his messengers ; but unto the Son he 
saith: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." 
Christ is certainly God, because he is here called God ; 
and, moreover, his throne is forever and ever. He 
must likewise be the eternal God, for his throne is 
forever. u Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated 
iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed 
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This 
is applicable to him in his human nature, inasmuch as 
he is exalted above the kings of the earth, and made 
King of kings, and Lord of lords. Then, "In the 
beginning, thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, 
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They 
shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, they all of 
them shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a ves- 
ture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed: 
but thy years shall not fail." This proves him to be 
God, for the creation of the heavens and the earth is 
the highest act of omnipotence. Then, u Sit thou on 
my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool." This agrees with his human nature, which, as a 
human nature, was as weak as any other human nature. 
Such are the wonders performed by an hypothesis, and 
such is the explanation in which the Christian world, 
both learned and ignorant, have acquiesced for many 
centuries. 

It will not be a difficult task, I think, to show the 
utter inconsistency and unsatisfactoriness of this expla- 
nation. The very first verse explodes it all. "God, 
9 



98 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

who in times past spake to the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son." 
God here, of course, means the entire Deity, without 
any distinction of persons, the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament, as it is the same who revealed himself to 
Moses and the rest of the prophets, and spake by 
them, and he has spoken to us by his Son. The 
" Son," here spoken of, is not a Person of the Trin- 
ity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the Son of 
God, the whole Deity, and, of course, is excluded 
from the Deity by the very terms of the proposition. 
He sustains the same relations, both to God and to 
man, as an organ of communication, as the ancient 
prophets. God spake through them, and spake through 
him, nor is there any difference intimated, except that 
he is called Son. They originated nothing, and he 
originated nothing. They spoke only what God com- 
manded, and so did he. The Son then cannot be a 
person of the Trinity. 

In the second place, the Trinitarian exposition of 
this passage overthrows itself by the inconsistency and 
contradiction of its parts. In one verse, the Son is 
said to have made the heavens and the earth ; in 
another, to have been the instrument through whom 
God made the worlds ; and in another part of the same 
verse, to be appointed heir of all things ; and then in 
another, as having no power of his own, to defend 
himself, or punish his enemies, but to be invited by the 
Almighty to sit at his right hand while he makes his 
enemies his footstool. He is eternal, and created the 
world, and yet he is introduced into the world as God's 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 99 

first-begotten i and the angels worship him, not because 
they owe him any allegiance, but because they are 
commanded to do so by their superior and his. 

After making the Son, God, the Creator of the 
world, still there is a God over him ; he is not the 
supreme God, but the supreme God has anointed him 
with the oil of gladness above his fellows. The Crea- 
tor of heaven and earth has fellows, above whom he is 
exalted by being anointed ! 

I do not hesitate to say, that with the Trinitarian 
exposition, this passage of the Bible presents a hetero- 
geneous mass of ideas blended in utter confusion. No 
consistent whole can be made out of them, which shall 
explain all the parts, and make them agree with them- 
selves and the rest of the sacred Scriptures. Of 
course, we are driven out of it, and, as we believe 
that this Epistle has a consistent and rational meaning, 
we are forced to seek it in some other exposition. 

But in order to explain this passage satisfactorily, it 
will be necessary to inquire what was the design and 
scope of the writer ? This, we find, was to guard the 
converts to Christianity from relapse into Judaism, by 
showing them that their expectations of the Messiah 
had received their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. To 
fulfil those expectations, he must be shown to be greater 
than Moses, greater than Aaron and the Levitical 
priesthood, and greater than the angels. The Jews of 
the later ages imagined, from certain expressions in the 
Old Testament, that the Law was given to Moses by 
the ministry of angels. The writer of this Epistle 
commences then, by endeavouring to show the supe- 



100 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

riority of Jesus, the Messiah, to angels. He begins, 
therefore, with the most dignified titles and offices 
which belong to him. He commences by calling him 
" the Son of God," an appellation given the Messiah 
long before he appeared, but without implying anything 
else than a human nature. As the Messiah, he is made 
heir of all things, not, of course, of the physical uni- 
verse, but is to rule and sway the world. The world 
is to be his spiritual kingdom : God, the supreme King, 
gives it to him, and thus exalts him, as it were, to a 
participation in his own dominion. This is now literally 
fulfilling in respect to Christ. u By whom also he 
made the worlds." The word rendered worlds, gene- 
rally means periods of .lime, or dispensations of religion. 
The Jews divided the existence of the world into three 
periods : the age before the Messiah, the age of the 
Messiah, and the age after the Messiah. Of course, 
the time when he came determined them all. The age 
before prepared for him, his coming put an end to that 
age, and introduced a new order of things, and the age 
after was shaped and moulded by what he accomplished 
when he was upon the earth. So, through Christ, God 
constituted the ages. 

I know that it has been maintained, that this passage 
asserts that Christ was the Creator of the material uni- 
verse ; and, as a corroboration of this sentiment, its 
advocates appeal to the first chapter of Colossians, 
fifteenth and sixteenth verses. u Who is the image of 
the invisible God, the first-born of every creature ; for 
by him were created all things which are in heaven, 
and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 101 

whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principali- 
ties, or powers, all things were created by him, and for 
him." But it is only to the superficial observer, that 
this passage seems to ascribe the creation of the mate- 
rial universe to Christ. There are two circumstances 
which forbid such an interpretation. One is, that 
Christ has created all things in heaven, and upon earth. 
This, of course, is not saying that he created the 
heavens, and the earth, but rather that he did not create 
them. Then what did he create ? The things he 
created are specifically enumerated ; u whether they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." 
Now these are not the material universe. They are 
certain dignities, offices, and powers, which Christ 
created as the head of the new dispensation. What 
this all means, we have explained in the eighteenth 
verse. " And he is the head of the body, the church ; 
who is the beginning, the first-begotten from the dead, 
that in all things he might have the preeminence." So 
far, then, from teaching that Christ is the Creator of the 
material universe, this passage merely asserts that Christ 
is the image of the invisible God ; inasmuch as God is 
at the head of the material universe, having created it, 
so Christ is at the head of the church, having created 
it. " Who being the brightness of his glory, and the 
express image of his person." The word rendered 
"brightness," means reflection, and the word rendered 
" express image," is the same which is used to desig- 
nate an impression upon a coin. The Trinitarian, of 
course, applies this to the divine nature of Christ, what 
he was before his incarnation, the second Person of 
9* 



102 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

the Trinity, the Son. But if he does so, it must be 
in inconsistency with what goes before, and what 
comes after. His image, &c, must, of course, refer 
to God, as in the commencement of the Epistle, and 
God there means the whole Deity, without distinction 
of persons. 

Now the Son, considered as a Person of the Trin- 
ity, cannot be a reflection and image of the whole 
Deity, without introducing the utmost confusion, both 
into language and into ideas, for it makes him an image 
and reflection of himself. Equally inconsistent is this 
meaning with another member of the sentence, u having 
by himself made a purification of our sins," referring 
of course to the suffering of death. The second 
Person of the Trinity could not suffer death. But 
what is still more conclusive on this point, is what 
follows : " Set down on the right of the Majesty on 
high." The second Person of the Trinity could not 
sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. We 
are driven then to interpret u reflection " and " image 
of God," to mean Jesus Christ as he appeared among 
men, clothed with divine power and supernatural 
knowledge, and the highest moral perfections. 

Man himself is said to have been made in the image 
of God. In another place, he is called " the image 
and glory of God." Paul says, in the eleventh chap- 
ter of first Corinthians : cc For a man ought not to 
cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory 
of God." Much more then might Christ, when here 
on earth, have been said to be a reflection of God's 
glory, and a likeness of his being, when he superadded 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 103 

to these natural reasons, his moral perfections and su- 
pernatural endowments. " Upholding all things by the 
word of his power." This bears, upon the face of it, 
the marks of being what it is, a wrong translation. 
Upholding things by a word, is not good sense, nor 
does the word thus translated bear that sense. It 
means, u controlling all things by the word of his pow- 
er," or by his powerful word. In this sense it is ap- 
plicable to the miracles of Christ, in which, by his 
word, he controlled diseases, stilled the storm, and 
raised the dead. Jill things, of course, has its usual 
limitation to the things which are the subjects of dis- 
course. He controlled everything which he attempted 
to control. If you make it to mean the government of 
the Universe, you will make the writer say that the 
Governor of the Universe, having suffered death, sat 
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. And 
who is the Majesty on high ? The Supreme God cer- 
tainly. It would read then, that the Governor of the 
Universe, having suffered death, sat down on the right 
hand of the Supreme God. 

" Being made so much better than the angels, as he 
hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name 
than they." Can the the second Person of the Trini- 
ty be made better than the angels ? How can he be 
made at all, if he is self-existent ? How can he be 
exalted, if he is immutable ? And how can his ex- 
altation above the angels consist in his having a bet- 
ter name given him than they ? Who gave him that 
name ? Let us read on : " For unto which of the 
angels said he at any time, ' Thou art my Son, this day 



104 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

have I begotten thee?'" God certainly says this. 
This of course cannot be applicable to the Son, the 
second Person in the Trinity, for he can have no be- 
ginning of existence. Let us read on farther : " And 
again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me 
a Son." These are the very words which were said 
to David concerning Solomon, as the others were 
spoken of his own exaltation to the throne of Israel. 
The government of Israel was a theocracy. God 
was its king. So when David was exalted to the 
throne, God represents himself as a human monarch 
adopting David as his son, and associating him in the 
empire. So God promises David, that he will protect 
and bless Solomon, when he shall be seated on the 
throne. u I will be to him a Father, and he shall be 
to me a Son." This language the Jews applied to 
their Messiah, in a still higher sense. He was to 
reign, not over the Jews alone, but over all nations. 
No such honor has ever been done to any one of the 
angels, as to be thus called the Son of God. Jesus, 
the Messiah, then, is superior to the angels, inasmuch as 
a higher title has been given him. 

" And again, when he bringeth the first- begotten into 
the world, he says, And let all the angels of God wor- 
ship him." The first-begotten, according to this rep- 
resentation, is indebted for the worship which the 
angels give him, to the command of a third person, 
who is God. He can be then no equal person of the 
Trinity, entitled to that worship on his own account. 
The word worship may be thought to indicate a divine 
nature. But if so, then the creditor, in the parable of 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS, 105 

the cruel servant, may be proved to be divine, for the 
debtor fell down and worshipped him. It often means, 
to do homage, as to a superior. It does so in this case, 
for the person is not God, but introduced into the world 
by God. If the Son, the second Person in the Trin- 
ity, is theyirsZ-begotten, who are his brethren ? 

We see then, in this, a mere extension of the theo- 
cratic idea. God, the supreme King, exalts Jesus to 
a place next himself, as a monarch exalts his eldest 
son, and commands the angels, his inferior ministers, to 
do him homage. * 

" And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his 
angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." The 
idea is not brought out in this verse by the translation 
at all. What is rendered spirits, is winds, and what 
is rendered a flame of fire, means lightnings ; and the 
sense is, u God makes the winds his angels, and light- 
nings his ministers." That is to say, so far from 
angels being anything very exalted, winds and lightnings 
are so called. Nor are they permanent in their exist- 
ence, for they cease to exist when the occasion on 
which they are employed is over. " But unto the Son 
he saith : Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever ; a 
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom ; 
thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; there- 
fore God, even thy God, hath annointed thee with the 
oil of gladness above thy fellows." It is immaterial to 
the purpose of our present investigation, to inquire 
whether the word " God " in this case is used in the 
nominative or the vocative case, so as to read, u God 
is thy throne, or thy throne, O God." The sense will 



106 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

be ultimately the same. Both will alike disprove the 
Trinity. It cannot be applied to the second Person of 
a Trinity. The second person of a Trinity cannot 
have a God. The second Person of the Trinity can- 
not be exalted on account of his moral merits, '1 be- 
cause he had loved righteousness and hated iniquity." 
Neither can he be " anointed with the oil of gladness, 
above his fellows." Whoever it is who is called God, 
he still has a God over him, to whom he is indebted for 
his exaltation. 

This use of the word God, then, is so far from help- 
ing the Trinitarian cause, being a clear case in which 
the term God is applied to Christ in an inferior sense, 
not involving divinity, that it takes from the force of 
those other passages where this word is thought to be 
applied to him, as for instance the address of Thomas. 
Thus far, then, the whole passage is conformed to the 
Messianic ideas of the Jews. God having spoken to 
the fathers by the prophets, has now spoken to their 
descendants by the Messiah, called, in the Scrip- 
tures, his Son. Corresponding to this idea of the Mes- 
siah being the Son of God, and in a manner his heir, 
he is promised universal dominion, referring to the se- 
cond Psalm, in which it is said, u Ask of me, and I 
will give thee the heathen for an inheritance, and the 
uttermost parts of the earth for a possession." As a son 
usually resembles his father, so the Messiah had some 
special points of resemblance to God, in his moral per- 
fections, in his unerring wisdom, and manifestation of 
supernatural control over the elements. Another point 
of resemblance, in his relation to God, to that of the 
son of an earthly monarch to his father, is, that after 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 107 

dying to cleanse mankind from sin, God exalted him to 
his right hand. He is therefore superior to the angels, 
by whom the Jews supposed their forefathers had re- 
ceived their law. He is exalted above the angels, 
inasmuch as he is called the Son of God. According to 
the Jewish interpretation, the second Psalm was appli- 
cable to the Messiah, as also the promise of God to 
David concerning Solomon. The very term angels, is 
less dignified than Son, for angel signifies messenger. 
There is, indeed, a passage in which the angels are com- 
manded to do him homage. Then, as to the perma- 
nency of his duration, he excels the angels. Winds 
and lightnings are called the angels of God. They 
are transient in their existence. But God has said to 
Messiah, u Thy throne, O God, is forever." O God, 
of course, must here mean, O King, or he could not 
have fellows, or be called God by Jehovah. The thrones 
of other kings crumble, but on account of the Mes- 
siah's peculiar merits, his throne is to be forever. 

The next verse requires a particular consideration. 
u And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foun- 
dations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of 
thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest ; and 
they all shall wax old, as doth a garment, and as a 
vesture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be 
changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not 
fail." The Trinitarian system makes this to be an 
address of the first Person of the Trinity to the sec- 
ond, and attributes the creation of the physical universe 
to him in an absolute sense. To this there are many 
objections. In the first place, it is inconsistent with 



108 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

the Trinitarian exposition of the rest of the paragraph. 
According to that system, the second verse makes him 
the Creator of the world only in an instrumental sense, 
u by whom God made the world." Now Christ could 
not have been the Creator of the world in an absolute 
and an instrumental sense both. Taken in connection 
with the rest of the passage, if it is an address of the 
same person to the same, with the words, u therefore, 
God, even thy God, hath anointed thee," it would 
prove that the Creator of the world is not the supreme 
God, and, of course, that the supreme God has nothing 
to do with us. Then the next verse: " But unto 
which of the angels at any time said he, Sit at my right 
hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool." He, who 
created the universe, could not want power to subdue 
his enemies. The Creator of the world cannot be 
made subordinate to any other Deity without confound- 
ing all theism, not to say the theology of the Bible. 
To apply it to Christ, entirely perverts its original 
meaning. It is a quotation from the latter part of the 
one hundred and second Psalm, which is a prayer to 
Jehovah of a person in trouble, and probably in sick- 
ness, apprehending himself to be drawing near his end : 
" I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of 
my days ; thy years are throughout all generations. 
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, and 
the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall 
perish, but thou shah endure ; yea, all of them shall wax 
old as doth a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change 
them, and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, 
and thy years shall have no end." Here is no refer- 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 109 

ence to the Messiah, as far as I can perceive, of the 
slightest kind. The only application then that it can 
have to the subject of the introduction to the Epistle 
of the Hebrews, is, that the Messiah's throne is to be 
eternal, because God is, who has exalted him to it ; 
while the heavens, the very habitation of the angels, 
where the lightnings, which he makes his angels, play, 
and the earth, where the winds, which he makes his 
messengers, blow, shall pass away. 

Such, then, I conceive to be the meaning of this 
celebrated passage. I have adopted it after frequent 
examination and revision, from time to time, for twenty 
years. On the whole, it seems the most consistent 
with itself, and the rest of the Scriptures. Whatever 
it may, or may not teach, one thing is certain, that it is 
altogether adverse to the common hypothesis of the 
Trinity, three equal Persons in one God. The Son, 
whoever he may be, is a derived, dependent, subordi- 
nate being. He is not the Supreme, but the Supreme 
is his God. And, whatever dignity or exaltation he 
has, all is derived from God, not as a Person of a 
Trinity, but from the whole Deity, without distinction 
of persons. 

This view is corroborated by the rest of the Epistle. 
For instance : u We see Jesus, who was made a little 
lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honor, that he might taste of 
death for every man." The glory here ascribed to 
Christ, is not a glory of nature, or of original dignity, 
but of extensive relation, that of tasting death for every 
man, that of benefitting mankind by his death. This 
10 



110 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

certainly is not a glory, which can be predicated of a 
Person of the Trinity, who is incapable of dying. 
Is it objected, that he was in a state of humiliation, 
and that this is indicated by the terms, " Thou hast 
wade him a little lower than the angels," by becoming 
incarnate ? It may be answered, that the same word 
and the same phrase is used of man in general. M What 
is man, that thou art mindful of him. Thou hast made 
him a little lower than the angels." If made means 
become incarnate in one case, it must in the other, and 
all mankind will be proved to have existed in a state of 
preexistent glory. " Wherefore, in all points, it 
behooved him to be made like his brethren, that he 
might be a compassionate and faithful high priest in the 
things which pertain to God, to make reconciliation 
for the sins of the people." Participation in supreme 
Deity is certainly a great point, an infinite point of 
difference. 

Finally, the way in which the Epistle winds up is 
sufficient, if there were nothing else, to establish the 
relations which subsist between God and Christ. u Now 
may the God of peace, who brought again from the 
dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of 
the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting cove- 
nant, make you perfect in every good work to do his 
will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his 
sight, through Jesus Christ. To him, that is God, be 
glory forever and ever. Amen." 

The attempt has been made, by bringing together 
two passages of this Epistle, to prove that Christ was 
the medium of communication with Moses and the 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. Ill 

patriarchs in the Old Testament. It has been main- 
tained, with great confidence, that he was the angel 
who appeared to Abraham, and to Moses in the bush, 
and led the Israelites out of Egypt. One of the pas- 
sages by which this doctrine is supported from the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, is from the eleventh chapter. 
" By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, re- 
fused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 
choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of 
God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; 
esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
the treasures of Egypt." It is thought, that by " the re- 
proach of Christ," is meant the reproach of being the 
leader of the Israelites under Christ. But there are 
two sufficient objections to this meaning. One of 
which is, that it does not appear that Moses, when he 
refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, had 
any idea of becoming the leader of Israel out of the 
land of bondage. The choice he then made, was to 
refuse to be reckoned or adopted into the royal family 
of Egypt, — a great worldly sacrifice, — and be con- 
sidered as belonging to a nation of oppressed slaves. 
In so doing he subjected himself to disgrace and re- 
proach, and shared it with the people of God. That 
disgrace was similar to that which was suffered by 
Christ and Christians. He was despised, and so were 
they. Jews and Gentiles looked upon him and them 
with contempt, and thought them a degraded class. 
It is probable, therefore, that the Apostle had in his 
mind this similarity of condition, and called the reproach 
of claiming kindred with the Jews, the reproach of 
Christ, because it was of a like nature. 



112 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

The other objection to this meaning, is, that the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has, by the use of 
similar language in another place, shown us how he 
would be taken in this case. u Wherefore, Jesus also, 
that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, 
suffered without the gate. Let us, therefore, go forth 
unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." 
Not his individual reproach, but a reproach like his ; 
going out of the camp, because we are unclean, as he 
became, by being crucified as a criminal. 

The other passage is in the twelfth chapter. "■ For ye 
are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and 
that burned with fire, nor unto blackness and darkness 
and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice 
of words, which voice they that heard, entreated that 
the word should not be spoken to them any more ; for 
they could not endure that which was commanded ; 
and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall 
be stoned, or thrust through with a dart, and so terrible 
was the sight, that Moses said ; I exceedingly fear and 
quake. But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and the 
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to 
an innumerable company of angels, to the general as- 
sembly and church of the first-born, which are written 
in heaven, and God the Judge of all, and to the spirits 
of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the Mediator of 
the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that 
speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. See 
that ye refuse not him that speaketh ; for if they 
escaped not, who refused him that spake on earth, 
much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 113 

him that speaketh from heaven ; whose voice then 
shook the earth ; but now he hath promised, saying, 
Yet once more I shake, not the earth only, but also 
heaven." 

Here it is said that " the voice, which shook the 
earth," at the beginning of the law. was the voice of 
Christ, because we are warned against turning away 
" from him that speaketh from heaven, ivhose voice 
then shook the earth." Christians could only turn 
away from a voice which they heard, and that was the 
voice of Christ. So it is agreed that Christ gave the law. 

But, if I mistake not, the meaning of this passage 
has been misapprehended on all sides. The voice w r as 
the same in both cases, in giving the Law and the 
Gospel, according to this representation. The expla- 
nation of the whole paragraph is this. The writer is 
contrasting the Law and the Gospel, particularly as to 
their mildness or severity. He makes the circumstances 
of the giving of the Law symbolical of its character. 
It was given on Mount Sinai, amidst the most awful 
displays of God's power. Moses himself was terri- 
fied. The mountain was enveloped in blackness and 
darkness and tempest. The Law was given with a 
voice like the sound of a trumpet, or accompanied 
with the sound of a trumpet. No one, not even 
a beast, was permitted to approach or to touch the 
mountain. As a counterpart to this, he describes the 
Gospel as given in a similar manner, not on earth, but 
in heaven. The Jews imagined things in heaven to 
correspond to those on earth, especially the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and the heavenly mount Sion, which was in 
10* 



114 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

Jerusalem. On this heavenly mount Sion, and in this 
heavenly Jerusalem, he pictures the Gospel as having 
been given by God, in an audible, though milder voice. 
The Jews imagined that there were present at the 
giving of the Law on Sinai, myriads of angels, as well 
as God, and Moses the mediator of the old covenant. 
At the giving of the Gospel, or the new covenant, not 
only is an innumerable company of angels present, but 
the great assembly of the saints, and of all holy men. 
God is there, as the Judge or Lawgiver, which were 
synonymous in the Oriental world, and Jesus the medi- 
ator of the new covenant. 1 will give, in the words of 
the inimitable original, the description of the august 
assembly, at which the writer represents all Christians 
as being present. "But ye are come unto mount 
Sion, unto the city of the living God, the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 
to the general assembly and church of the first-born, 
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of 
all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to 
Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the 
blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than 
the blood of Abel." This is represented as taking 
place in heaven, in order to symbolize the superiority 
of the Gospel to the Law. Of course, God, in giving 
the Gospel, according to this representation, spoke 
from heaven, from mount Sion, in the heavenly Jeru- 
salem. But he spake on earth when he gave the law 
on Sinai. Hence the propriety of what follows. " See 
that ye refuse not him that speaketh ; for if they escaped 
not who refused him that spake on earth, much more 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 1 15 

shall not we escape if we turn away from him that 
speaketh from heaven, whose voice then shook the 
earth ; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once 
more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." 

The parts of the Old Testament, which are quoted 
to prove that the divine appearances to Abraham and 
Moses, were Christ, when examined, will be found, I 
believe, to give very little countenance to that idea. 
One of them is found in the eighteenth chapter of Gen- 
esis. Abraham sees what he supposes to be three 
men, who afterward turn out to be three angels. By 
some it has been said, that these three angels were the 
three Persons of the Trinity, and yet we are told, in 
the same breath, by the same persons, that God the 
Father never did assume a personal form. Abraham 
addresses first one of them alone, we are not told 
which, " My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy 
sight, pass not away from thy servant." Then he 
addresses the three together : H Let a little water, I 
pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest 
yourselves under the tree." It is said, that one of 
these angels, we are not told which, personated God, 
and spoke as God. But the Bible says no such thing. 
The words of the Bible are: u And Jehovah said unto 
Abraham, Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I 
do ? " It is inferred, or taken for granted, that one of 
the angels said this. But there is as much against this 
inference as for it, for we read : " And the men turned 
their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom : but 
Abraham stood yet before the Lord." By what spe- 
cies of logic it is proved, that these three men or three 



116 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

angels were three Persons of the Trinity, or that 
one of them was Christ, I am utterly at a loss to im- 
agine. 

Another of these passages is found in the twenty- 
third chapter of Exodus. It is in the midst of the 
giving of the Law. " Behold, I send an angel before 
thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into 
the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, 
and obey his voice, provoke him not ; for he will not 
pardon your transgressions ; for my name is in him. 
But if thou wilt indeed obey his voice, and do all that 
I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, 
and an adversary to thine adversaries." By this angel, 
God is thought to mean Christ, the second Person of 
the Trinity. But I believe, it is only a mind predis- 
posed by education to see a Trinity everywhere, that 
can find it here. Nothing can be plainer than the whole 
phraseology, to show, that by the angel he means no 
real person, but that it is only a figurative mode of 
speech for his own presence and power and personality. 
The angel is nothing in himself, except as an instrument 
of Jehovah. u My name is in him ; " he acts by my 
authority, he does what I command. He is the mere 
organ of my speech. " But if thou shalt indeed obey 
his voice, and do all that / speak, then I will be an en- 
emy to thine enemies." Jehovah is the ultimate agent 
in all that is done by the angel. This mode of speech 
was probably induced by the fact, that there was a vis- 
ible token of the presence of God which accompanied 
the Israelites through the desert. God himself is some- 
times called an angel, in the Old Testament, because he 



FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 117 

manifested his presence by an angel, for the instruction 
and comfort and encouragement of the saints of old. 
Thus in blessing the two sons of Joseph, Jacob 
says : " The God, before whom my fathers Abraham 
and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life 
long unto this day, the angel, which redeemed me from 
all evil, bless the lads." 

In the first Epistle of Peter, a passage is found 
which is thought to give countenance to the idea that 
Christ was the medium of communication with the 
prophets of the Old Testament. " Searching what, or 
what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was 
in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 
But if we adhere strictly to the Trinitarian partition of 
the divine operations, inspiration is the peculiar and 
exclusive function of the third Person, the Holy 
Ghost. " For the prophecy came not in old time by 
the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost." The u Spirit of 
Christ," then, cannot mean Christ as the second Per- 
son of the Trinity. It must mean the spirit of pro- 
phecy, having certain relations to Christ, either the same 
that was possessed by him, or that which predicted him. 
The latter sense suits the connection best, the spirit 
which predicted Christ. The meaning then of the pas- 
sage will be this. " Searching what, or what manner of 
time the spirit which predicted Christ that was in them 
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow." And this 
agrees best with the representation in the commencement 
of the Epistle we have been considering, that God 



118 FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 

spake directly to the prophets, without any interven- 
tion, and in after ages has spoken through Christ in the 
same manner. "God, who at sundry times and in 
divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers 
by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto 
us by his Son." 



LECTURE VI. 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 
REVELATION, I. 1. 

THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM. 

The Apocalypse is to most persons a sealed book, 
a book of wonders and marvels, a succession of pic- 
tures, gorgeous but unmeaning, a drama teaching no- 
thing, a collection of symbols, the key of which is 
lost. Most people read it as they look through a kalei- 
doscope, only to see one image come over the field of 
vision after another, without any intelligible relation to 
the one that went before, or the one that comes after. 
On the whole, it is read with little pleasure and profit 
by the mass of Christians. 

Such being the case, it is my purpose to step aside 
somewhat from the path of the controversialist, and 
give such a general view of the meaning and purposes 
of this composition, as to enable my hearers to read it 
hereafter with a better understanding, not only of its 
doctrinal, but its prophetical import. 

It has been considered as a part of the Scriptures 
which strongly favors the doctrine of the Trinity. I 



120 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

shall attempt to show you, in the course of this lecture, 
that its doctrinal bearings are all the other way. It has 
been interpreted to foretell almost every remarkable 
event and conspicuous personage that has appeared in 
the world, from the time that it was written to the pre- 
sent hour ; and every interpreter has been equally cer- 
tain that he was right, from him who supposed the 
reigning Roman Emperor to have been the main sub- 
ject of the book, to him who thought its chief purpose 
was to predict the career of Napoleon Bonaparte. 

When viewed in its own elements, there seems to 
be no doubt, that the events which it predicts immedi- 
ately began to receive their fulfilment. " Blessed is he 
that readeth, and they that hear the words of this pro- 
phecy, and keep those things which are written therein, 
for the time is at hand." It was written, too, for the 
consolation of those who were suffering persecution, 
It is supposed by many to have been written in the 
times of Domitian, one of the most bloody and cruel 
of all the tyrants that reigned over the Roman world. 
tc I John, who also am your brother and companion in 
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus 
Christ." The church was suffering great persecution, 
and many were put to death. The Gospel had been 
preached for more than sixty years, if this book was 
written in Domitian's time, yet still the Christian 
community maintained but a doubtful existence. The 
power of Paganism was not yet broken, and the Jews 
were everywhere no less hostile to the Christians than 
the heathen world. Occasionally there was an out- 
break of popular fury, which was sure to wreak itself 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 121 

upon the Christians. In this state of things, there was 
great danger that their faith and patience would fail, and 
many of them begin to fear that they had been de- 
luded ; that Jesus had never risen, and never as- 
cended to heaven ; that he had no official relations to 
God and to man ; that he was not exalted to a state of 
favor with the Ruler of the Universe, and of course 
could not fulfil his pomise of watching over and defend- 
ing his church ; that his religion was not to prevail in its 
present struggle with its foes ; and that those future re- 
wards which Christ had promised were never to be 
realized. 

To meet and remedy this state of feeling, seems to 
be the purpose of the book of Revelation. To assure 
the church that they had not followed cunningly devised 
fables, when they believed in the power and coming of 
the Lord Jesus Christ ; that he had in fact risen from 
the dead, and was exalted by God to a high condition 
of power and dignity ; knew what was going on upon 
earth ; was able to appear to his followers, and render 
them consolation and support ; was instructed by God 
with a knowledge of the future condition of the church 
and of the world, — he is permitted to visit the earth, 
and tell his church, that her troubles shall not always 
last, but that she shall be victorious over all her foes. 
Both Judaism and Paganism are to fall before her, and 
at last, her struggle being over, and her warfare ac- 
complished, she shall be received into the abodes of 
bliss, into the new Jerusalem, which is to come down 
from God out of heaven, where shall be concentrated 
all that is delightful to the mind, and ravishing to the 
11 



122 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

senses, and God and the Messiah shall reign over her 
forever. Such, then, is the outline of the book. I shall 
now go over some of the scenes of this grand drama of 
the history of the church. 

The first act opens upon the Isle of Patmos. There 
is John in the seclusion of banishment. It is on the 
Lord's day, the first day of the week, the day on which 
Christ had risen from the dead, and therefore regarded 
by the church with a peculiar sacredness. Suddenly 
he hears behind him a voice like the sound of a trum- 
pet. He turns to see who it is that speaks, and behold, 
his Master, on whose bosom he had once leaned, and on 
whom he had thought so much, but so changed that he 
did not know him. That head, once bowed upon the 
cross, is now glorified; those feet, once pierced with nails, 
now glow like molten brass ; that voice, once faltering 
in the agonies of death, is now like the sound of many 
waters ; and that countenance, once pale and convulsed 
with suffering, is now as the sun shining in his strength. 
There is hope for the church yet, when its head is thus 
glorified. But the astonished Apostle fails to recognize 
the crucified amidst all this splendor, and he falls faint- 
ing at his feet. But Jesus hastens to relieve him of his 
fears, and lays his hand upon him, and repeats the 
very words with which he had calmed his disciples' 
fears on the lake of Galilee ; " It is I ; be not afraid : 
I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am 
alive forevermore." 

Such an appearance surely ought to dispel all doubt 
from the church, if her head is alive from the dead, and in 
such a condition of glory and power. But not only so, 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 123 

he still cares for the churches, he knows their condi- 
tion. He who could read men's thoughts on earth, and 
could tell Nathaniel where he had been before he saw 
him, now that he is exalted to heaven has still more 
extensive power. He who needed not that any should 
testify to him of man, for he knew the character of 
each man, in a state of exaltation knows the character 
and condition of whole churches. Not only does he 
know the character and condition of each church, but 
he is solicitous for its welfare, and sends messages 
adapted to the condition of each. Each message is 
closed with an exhortation to persevere, with the prom- 
ise of some reward from his God : " To him that over- 
cometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in 
the midst of the paradise of my God." Everything 
has reference to a state of trial and persecution, such 
as the church was then suffering. 

After these various messages to the churches, the 
scene changes from earth to heaven. John sees a 
door opened in heaven, and is invited to ascend 
thither, to receive the disclosures of futurity, which 
are about to be made to him. None of course can 
know futurity but God ; and heaven is his residence ; 
therefore to know futurity he must ascend to heaven. 
That, he goes on to say, he is invited to do. He 
enters heaven through a door. To us this seems 
strange. But with the Jewish conceptions of heaven, 
this was perfectly consistent. They conceived of hea- 
ven as a vast temple, and imagined the temple which 
Moses was shown on Mount Sinai, and after the simil- 
itude of which their own tabernacle was to be con- 



124 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

structed, was heaven itself. Into this vast temple 
John is introduced ; and there he sees the throne of 
God, the Almighty Ruler of the Universe. " And 
behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the 
throne." It glittered with glory like the brilliancy of 
precious stones, and was encircled with a rainbow. Out 
of it proceeded thunderings and lightnings and voices. 
To complete the scene, there are burning before the 
throne seven lamps of fire ; but to correspond with 
heaven, they must be of no common element, they 
must be composed of the divine essence itself, and 
they are the seven Spirits of God. 

But on a nearer inspection, this visitant of the tem- 
ple in the heavens discovers that the throne of the 
Eternal is borne up, not by the common supports of a 
seat, but by living creatures, instinct with life and in- 
telligence. Four living creatures support the throne of 
God, with faces turned every way, each symbolical of 
some cardinal attribute of the Divine nature. The ox 
is the emblem of endurance, the lion of omnipotence, 
the human face of wisdom, and the eagle of swiftness, 
or omnipresence. To complete the dignity of the 
court of heaven, the Almighty must have his council, 
to intimate that nothing is done there without the fullest 
and maturest deliberation. Then we have the ceremo- 
nies of the court of heaven. The four living creatures, 
being nearest the throne, never cease their adorations. 
cc They cease not, day nor night, crying, Holy, Holy, 
Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, and which was, 
and which is to come. And when those creatures 
give glory, and honor, and thanks, to him that sat on 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 125 

the throne, and who liveth forever and ever, the four and 
twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the 
throne, and who liveth forever and ever, and cast their 
crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O 
Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power, for thou 
hast created all things ; for thy pleasure they are and 
were created." 

But still no revelation is made. The secrets of fu- 
turity are yet locked up in the Divine mind. But soon 
he sees the way opened in which they are to be re- 
vealed. He sees in the right hand of him that sits upon 
the throne, a little book, containing the record of des- 
tiny, the future fate and fortunes of the church and of 
the world. 

But here a difficulty occurs. No one is found wor- 
thy to take the book and read its awful mysteries, nor 
even so much as to look upon it. Hereupon there is 
a pause, and John weeps, but he is soon relieved by 
the assurance that One is found worthy of the great 
office, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, Jesus the Mes- 
siah. He looks and sees before the throne, and within 
the circle of the council, the crucified, in the form of a 
lamb, that had been slain. He approaches the throne, 
and takes the book, and then the whole host of heaven 
bursts forth in his praise, and tell the reason why he 
is worthy to receive a revelation from God. " Thou 
art worthy to receive the book, and to open the seven 
seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 
us unto God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation." 

Such, then, is the combination of symbols by which 
11* 



126 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

the writer would convey the idea, that God has made a 
revelation by Christ of the things which are to take 
place in regard to the fate of the churches and the 
world. 

But so many things as are involved in the fate of a 
religion, struggling with the powers that be, cannot be 
told in few words, nor can they be told in words at all. 
It is necessary, therefore, that they be communicated 
by symbols, in which mode of expression, long familiar 
in the East before such a thing as an alphabet was 
known, many things might be condensed into a small 
space. The first enemy which Christianity encoun- 
tered was Judaism, and the contest was sharp and 
bloody. Jerusalem was soon stained with the blood of 
the martyrs ; Stephen and James were slain, even in 
the cradle of the new faith ; and, wherever the 
preachers of the Gospel came, the Jews were their 
earliest and most bitter opposers. The first struggle, 
therefore, in the Apocalypse, is of Christianity with 
Judaism. This occupies the book to the end of the 
seventh chapter. To this the opening of the seals 
refers. The whole complexion of this part of the 
work, is that of hope and encouragement. The first 
omen is that of victory. " And I saw, when the Lamb 
opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were, the 
voice of thunder, one of the four creatures, saying, 
Come and see. And I saw, and behold, a white horse, 
and he that sat on him had a bow, and a crown was 
given him, and he went forth conquering and to con- 
quer," — an emblem of victory. This is enough. 
Christ and the Church shall be victorious. Judaism 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 127 

shall fall before it. But before the destruction of this 
hostile nation, some are to be saved out of it. Many- 
were in fact converted. Substituting a certain for an 
uncertain number, the converts are put down at a hun- 
dred and forty-four thousand. Not only is their con- 
dition on earth described, and their redemption in 
heaven, but among the myriads who surround the 
throne the martyrs are not forgotten. One of the 
seven seals is especially set apart to tell their fate. A 
profession of Christianity and martyrdom, were almost 
synonymous in the first ages of the church. The streets 
of Rome w r ere sometimes illuminated by the burning 
of Christians enveloped in pitch and other combusti- 
bles. They were liable at any moment to be sum- 
moned before the magistrates, and examined under 
torture, whether they were Christians or not ; and if 
they confessed a belief in Christ, were often immedi- 
ately ordered to execution. This act, a crying injus- 
tice, the author of this book makes to be the subject of 
righteous complaint before God in heaven. The 
Christians of that age needed all the consolation and 
strength that could be derived from the knowledge of 
the fact, that their sufferings were not unregarded in 
heaven. " And when he had opened the fifth seal, I 
saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain 
for the word of God, and the testimony which they 
had. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How 
long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge our 
blood on them that dwell upon the earth ? And white 
robes were given unto every one of them, and it was 
said unto them that they should rest yet for a little 



128 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

season, until their fellow servants also, and their breth- 
ren, that should be killed as they were, should be 
accomplished." 

They afterward appear among the multitude of the 
blessed, with palms of victory in their hands, and 
clothed in white robes. u And one of the elders 
answered and said unto me, What are these, which are 
arrayed in white robes, and whence came they ? And 
I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said unto 
me : These are they which come out of great tribula- 
tion, and have washed their robes, and made them 
white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they 
before the throne of God, and serve him day and night 
in his temple : and he that sitteth on the throne shall 
dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, 
neither thirst any more, neither shall the sun light on 
them, nor any heat ; For the Lamb, that is in the midst 
of the throne, shall feed them, and shall lead them 
unto living fountains of water, and God shall wipe away 
all tears from their eyes." 

Such was to be the glorification of the martyrs, for 
whose consolation the book was especially written. The 
first enemy of the church, Judaism, being destroyed, 
there remained Paganism and the Roman power. From 
the seventh to the nineteenth chapter, the struggle between 
Christianity and Idolatry and the civil power, is vari- 
ously represented, sometimes the latter taking the form 
of a beast and false prophet, and sometimes of a woman 
clothed in scarlet. At last, in the nineteenth chapter, 
Christ is represented to be victorious over all his foes, 
and he who went forth at the opening of the vision on a 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 129 

white horse, conquering and to conquer, returns in 
triumph. u And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a 
white horse, and he that sat on him was called Faith- 
ful and True. And he was clothed with a vesture 
dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of 
God. And the armies that were in heaven followed 
him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and 
clean." 

Then follows a description of the consummation of 
all things, when the wicked shall be punished, and the 
righteous made forever happy ; and the abode of hap- 
piness is described after the Jewish conceptions, as the 
new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, 
filled with everything that can minister to eternal de- 
light. " And 1 saw a new heaven and a new earth, 
for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. 
And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, 
coming down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a 
bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great 
voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of 
God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they 
shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, 
and be their Go^l. And God shall wipe away all 
tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, 
neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any 
more pain, for the former things are passed away." 

Such, then, is the general prophetical and symbolical 
aspect of the book of Revelation, a most magnificent 
and astonishing production, which for gorgeousness and 
sublimity far transcends any other composition in ex- 
istence. I now turn to its doctrinal bearings. It has 



130 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

been considered as a stronghold of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, insomuch that not a few consider it to be con- 
clusive upon that subject. It will be the purpose of 
the remainder of this lecture to show you that pre- 
cisely the opposite is the fact. God is represented 
through the whole, as one, undivided, and supreme, 
alone possessing the essential attributes of Deity. 
Jesus Christ is represented as exalted to the first 
dignity in heaven, after the one Jehovah, but still as a 
being distinct, inferior, and dependent for all his attributes 
on Jehovah. Then, wherever you look, you see no such 
person as the Holy Spirit, which certainly ought not to 
be the case if it be a fact that such a person actually 
exists in heaven. The nearest approach to personality, 
is seven spirits before God's throne ; and if these are 
all persons, there are nine persons in the Deity, in- 
stead of three. 

We begin then with the very first sentence, and we 
say that it overthrows every Trinitarian idea to be de- 
rived from the whole book. " The revelation of Jesus 
Christ which God gave unto him." Consider for a 
moment what facts this language involves. Here is 
Christ exalted to heaven, and has been for at least 
thirty years, and possessing all the divine attributes that 
he ever will possess, God, if he ever was, or ever will 
be, and yet excluded from Deity both by the language 
and by the fact. To say that God gave Jesus Christ 
a revelation, denies him to be God, in so many 
words, and denies him to be God, in the fact of its 
being needful or possible to make a revelation to him. 
One test of deity is the possession of omniscience. 
If you say that Jesus Christ could be told any- 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 131 

thing past, present, or to come, you deny that he is 
God. The test of his being God by identity of being 
with God, is identity of consciousness. To be the 
same in any intellectual sense, there must be the same 
consciousness in both. If there is not this identity of 
knowledge between Christ and God, then it is in vain 
that you assert an identity of being, or that you assert 
that Christ is God in any sense. 

Then we pass on to the salutation. In that you see 
the widest distinction maintained between Jehovah and 
Christ ; and the Spirit, if personal at all, is seven per- 
sons. 4C Grace unto you and peace, from him who is, 
and who was, and who is to come," that is, from Jeho- 
vah, who alone possesses these incommunicable attri- 
butes of self-existence and eternity, " and from the seven 
Spirits, which are before his throne," that is, God's 
throne. They can make no part of God, then, if 
they are before his throne, unless they are personifica- 
tions of his attributes. " And from Jesus Christ." 
Let us consider the attributes by which he is distin- 
guished, contrasted with those of Jehovah, " the faithful 
witness, the first-begotten of the dead, and the chief 
of the kings of the earth." No Person of a Trinity 
can be the first-begotten of the dead, or the chief of 
the kings of the earth. 

We now come to the doxology, which follows imme- 
diately after. Here the Trinitarian imagines that he 
makes a strong point. Here is a doxology to Christ. 
Is not this demonstration that he is God ? If he is not 
God, how can he have a doxology without idolatry ? 
Let us then take particular notice of the reasons for 



132 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

which ascriptions of praise are given him, and the 
relations which he is represented as sustaining to God. 
" To him that hath loved us, and washed us from 
our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
priests unto his God and Father." Such is the true 
reading of the text. Now a Person of the Trinity 
cannot wash us in his blood ; and although he possibly 
might have a Father, he cannot have a God. What- 
ever degree of homage is given to him, is not paid to 
him as God, nor for anything that God could do. The 
very terms, then, of this doxology, are not such as be- 
long to supreme Divinity, but shut him out from par- 
ticipation in supreme Divinity. 

It is proper to say, as we pass along, that the second 
Alpha and Omega, in the eleventh verse, have no au- 
thority, and are now rejected from the text by all parties. 
In the seventeenth verse, the phrase " the first and the 
last," though similar in appearance to Alpha and 
Omega, cannot, of course, be applied in the same 
sense, or to the same person, because immediately after 
he says, "I am he that liveth and was dead, and be- 
hold, I am alive forevermore." This, of course, can- 
not apply to Jehovah. The meaning is, u I am the 
only one, the first and the last, who died and rose 
again ; " as is confirmed by the rest of the sentence, 
" and have the keys of hell and death," have gone down 
through the gates of death, and come up again, and, 
therefore, can pass and repass at will. 

The next indication of doctrinal sentiment, is in the 
messages to the churches. Christ there maintains the 
same relation to God and to man which he did when on 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 133 

earth, as the organ of communication , the instrument 
of the prophetic spirit. What he says is not from him- 
self personally, as would be the case were he God, or 
did he speak as God. But he says : " Whosoever hath 
ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the 
Churches." What Spirit ? The Spirit of inspiration 
surely, by which God gave the whole revelation to 
Christ, according to the first verse. u The revelation 
of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." How 
could there be a more conclusive disclaimer that he was 
God? 

The advocate of the Trinity may suppose that he 
finds strong confirmation of his hypothesis, in the knowl- 
edge which Christ represents himself to possess of the 
state of the churches, and of individual character. 
" That the churches may know that I am he that 
searcheth the reins and hearts ; " but he will find that 
it is only the extension of the same power which he 
had on earth, of knowing the thoughts and characters of 
men, which was a prophetic gift. 

This whole matter is explained in the beginning of 
the fifth chapter. The source of Christ's knowledge 
is there symbolically expressed to be given him by 
God. The whole composition, indeed, is a book of 
symbols. Everything which is to be represented, im- 
mediately takes that form which befits the occasion and 
the thing to be done. At the pause in heaven, when 
no one is found worthy to take the little book out of 
the hand of God, and the Messiah comes forward to 
do it, he becomes a lion. He becomes a lion when 
he is called upon to act, but he is a lamb when it is his 
12 



134 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

part to suffer with patience. " And one of the elders 
said unto me, Weep not. Behold the Lion of the 
tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to 
open the book, and the seven seals thereof. And I 
saw in the midst, between the throne and the living 
creatures, and the elders, a Lamb, as it were slain." 
He is slain, because it was by suffering death that he 
became the author of salvation to man; — " having 
seven horns." Horns were the symbols of power in 
the East, and, strange as it may appear to us, the coins 
which were struck in honor of Alexander are found to 
have horns like a beast. So much was power associ- 
ated with this appendage of the brute creation, that it 
is introduced into one of the descriptions of God him- 
self, in the Old Testament, which has always been 
considered as one of the sublimest passages of that 
book. " God came from Teman, and the Holy One 
from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, 
and the earth was full of his praise. And his bright- 
ness was as the light, he had horns coming out of his 
hand, and there was the hiding of his power. Before 
him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth 
at his feet. He stood and measured the earth. He 
beheld and drove asunder the nations. And the ever- 
lasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills 
did bow. His ways are everlasting." 

The Lamb then, though he had been slain, is repre- 
sented as invested with great power. He has seven 
horns, the perfect and sacred number, indicating great 
power. u And seven eyes, which are the seven spirits 
of God, sent out into all the earth." Here, too, is 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 135 

another symbolical expression. The "eye is the symbol 
of intelligence. The Saviour, in the state of exalta- 
tion, has the power of seeing, or knowing, what is 
going on upon the earth. This has already been signi- 
fied, by the fact that he was acquainted with the state of 
the different churches to which he had sent messages. 
But those eyes do not see all this by their own natural 
powers, but by power super naturally communicated. 
They are u the seven spirits of God." Translated 
then from symbols to plain words, the sentence reads 
thus : " Endowed with great dignity, and enabled by the 
power of God to see whatever is taking place upon 
the earth." 

But how 7 ever advanced in power and knowledge he 
was, all was derived. u He that overcometh and keep- 
eth my works until the end, I will give him authority 
over the nations, and he shall feed them with an iron 
sceptre, and as potters' vessels shall he break them in 
pieces, as I also received of my Father" However 
exalted, he is not God. So far from it. he has a God. 
" He that overcometh I will make a pillar in the tem- 
ple of my God." " To him that overcometh will I 
give to sit down with me in my throne, even as I also 
overcame, and am set down with my Father in his 
throne." Such quotations as these ought to settle 
the question, so far as the book of Revelation is con- 
cerned. 

But the Trinitarian supposes that he has counter- 
vailing testimony farther on in the book. Christ, it is 
said, is made an object of worship. But worship in 
the Bible is equiovocal. It is paid not only to God, but 



136 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

to inferior beings. The question for us to decide is 
this : Is he worshipped as God, as the Supreme Being ? 
Let us examine. John represents himself as being 
carried up to heaven, and as seeing a representation of 
God as a king, sitting upon a throne, but he is single 
and undivided. " A throne was set, and One sat 
on the throne." He is worshipped as one, single, un- 
divided Being. The celestial inhabitants cry, " Holy, 
Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, 
and is to come." Here he is worshipped for incom- 
municable, divine attributes, for self-existence and eter- 
nity. Then, for what he alone could do, " Thou art 
worthy to receive glory and honor and power, for thou 
hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are 
and were created." 

Then Christ is introduced, not as God, for God is 
still upon the throne, but as a lamb before the throne. 
He approaches God, and takes the book out of the 
hand of God. Then the host of heaven break forth 
in his praise. " Thou art worthy to take the book and 
to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast 
redeemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kin- 
dred and tongue and people and nation." He certainly 
is not worshipped as God when he stands before the 
throne of God, and in the presence of God. He is 
praised for being worthy to take the book out of the 
hand of God, not because he possessed divine attri- 
butes, but because he had redeemed his followers unto 
God by his blood, which God certainly could not do. 
Then they are joined together in an act of worship, 
but not as equal, not as persons of a Trinity, but 
one as God, and the other as the Lamb. " Blessing, 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 137 

and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- 
teth on the throne, and unto the Lamb. " There is no in- 
timation that these two were one, or were equal. One was 
on the throne, which was Jehovah, and the other before 
the throne, which was the Lamb, or Christ. Then the 
martyrs, in their hymns of praise, keep up the same 
broad distinction : " Salvation unto our God, which sit- 
teth on the throne, and unto the Lamb." There is evi- 
dently no intention on the part of the writer of exalting 
the Lamb to an equality with God, or of admitting him 
into the Deity, for it is said, " God and the Lamb." 
This distinction is kept up through the whole book. 
Christ is represented as exalted to the highest dignity 
in heaven next to God, and as watching over the wel- 
fare of his church, but everywhere as totally distinct 
from that unique and eternal Being, who alone pos- 
sesses the attributes of Jehovah, "who was, and who 
is, and who is to come, who hath made all things, for 
whose pleasure they are and were created," who alone 
held in his hand the book of destiny, who alone knew 
all the events which were ever to take place, and who 
gave the revelation to Jesus Christ. 

So far is he from being put on a level with God in 
the worship of heaven, that he is in one place put on a 
level with Moses, as a worshipper of God. An innu- 
merable company is represented as having been victo- 
rious over idolatry, and having arrived at heaven, they 
there celebrate the praise of God in a hymn, which is 
called u the song of Moses and the Lamb," either be- 
cause it was sung by the saved, both of Jews and 
Christians, or because it was the common object of 
12* 



13S THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

Moses and Christ to destroy idolatry. " And I saw as 
it were a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that 
had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his 
image, and over his mark, and over the number of his 
name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of 
God. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant 
of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and 
marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty ; just 
and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall 
not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name ? for thou 
only art holy : for all nations shall come and worship 
before thee ; for thy judgments are made manifest." 
Now, if the Lamb were a Person of the Trinity, would 
he not rather be placed as a person worshipped, instead 
of a person worshipping ? Is not his being left out of 
Deity, and associated with Moses, sufficient evidence that 
the writer did not consider him as God in any sense? 
Not only so ; the theocratic ideas of the Old Testa- 
ment are maintained through the whole book. Christ 
is represented as reigning, but it is only under God, as 
the supreme Sovereign, and by his power and appoint- 
ment. " And the seventh angel sounded, and there 
were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of 
this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and 
of his Christ, and he shall reign forever. And the four 
and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, 
fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying, We 
give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, 
and wast, and art to come, because thou hast taken to 
thee thy great power and hast reigned." In another 
place : u And I heard a loud voice, saying in heaven. 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 139 

Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom 
of our God, and the power of his Christ." 

All these things certainly look very different from a 
modern form of worship, which has been stereotyped, 
as it were, for the use of all ages. u O holy, blessed, 
and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God." 

There are two passages near the close of the book, 
which, when brought together, are thought to constitute 
a strong argument for the supreme Divinity of Jesus 
Christ. In the sixth verse of the last chapter, the 
angel who had just shown John the heavenly Jerusalem, 
and seems to have been the expositor of the symbolic 
images which had passed before the vision of the Iiev- 
elator, says to him, " These sayings are faithful and 
true, and the Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent 
his angel to show unto his servants the things which 
must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly ; blessed 
is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this 
book." Then in the sixteenth verse, u /, Jesus, have 
sent mine angel to testify these things in the churches." 

Now it is argued, from the fact that the angel says, 
that " the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his 
angel," and Jesus says, M I, Jesus, have sent mine 
angel," that Jesus is the Lord God of the holy proph- 
ets, and as the Lord God of the holy prophets is Je- 
hovah, Jesus mnst be Jehovah. 

But in order to settle this, it will be necessary to de- 
termine whether, throughout the book, Jesus acts in an 
original and independent, or only in a subordinate and 
ministerial capacity. Does he give the revelation him- 
self, or does he merely transmit it from God to men, or, 



140 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

what amounts to the same thing, does not God, in pro- 
motion of his cause, send an angel to make certain dis- 
closures to John ? Christ speaks, in the Gospel of 
John, of his sending that which God sends in his name. 
u And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I 
do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." He 
means to say, of course, that he will give it through the 
Father. The Father, to whom all prayer is to be 
made, would give it on his account, as he afterwards 
explains : u In that day, ye shall ask me nothing. 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask 
the Father inmy 7iame, He will give ityou." It is not 
necessary that what is asked in the name of Christ, 
and given by God, should come through the agency of 
Christ, in order to be said to be given by him ; but 
only to be given for his sake, and in promotion of his 
cause. This mode of representation enables us to un- 
derstand what is meant by the first sentence of the book 
of Revelation, and all similar passages in the whole com- 
position. " The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God 
gave unto him, to show unto his (God's) servants the 
things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent 
and signified it to his servant John." Now it is imma- 
terial whether the word " he," in this sentence, refers 
to God or Christ ; it will ultimately amount to the same 
thing. If God sent the angel directly to John, then 
the angel was the angel both of God and Jesus, 
according to the representation we have quoted from 
the Gospel of John, by which Jesus is said to do that, 
which God does on his account, or in furtherance of 
his cause. Or if Christ sent the angel to John, he was 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 141 

still the angel of God as well as of Christ, for he deliv- 
ers a message, which Christ received from God, for 
the purpose of communicating it to mankind. Besides, 
the angels, though subjected to Christ, as we read, 
" principalities and powers being made subject to 
him," they are no less the angels of God than before. 

It would seem, that the writer intended to represent 
that the angel came immediately from God, by a com- 
parison of the first verse of the first chapter with the 
sixth verse of the last. u The revelation of Jesus 
Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his 
servants things which must shortly come to pass ; and 
he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John." 
In the last chapter; "The Lord God of the holy 
prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the 
things which must shortly come to pass." If the last 
verse may be permitted to interpret the first, then the 
person referred to in the first, in the clause, u and he 
sent and signified it to his servant John," must refer to 
God. and not to Christ immediately, though an angel, 
sent by God to reveal anything to the church for the 
sake of Christ, and in furtherance of his cause, accord- 
ing to the representations I have quoted from the Gos- 
pel of John, might be said to be sent by Christ. 

When these things are taken into consideration, the 
fact, that in one case it is said, " the Lord God of 
the holy prophets hath sent his angel," and in another, 
u I, Jesus, have sent mine angel,'' does not prove them 
to be identical and the same, or prove that Jesus 
claimed to be the Lord God of the holy prophets, for 
the book commences with making them distinct beings 



142 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

from each other. One is God, both by name and by 
what he does ; and the other is not God, both by name 
and by what he does not do. " The revelation of 
Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him." 

Many persons are led into mistake, in the interpreta- 
tion of the close of this book, by considering, " Behold, 
I come quickly," in the seventh and twelveth verses, to 
have been spoken by Jesus ; whereas they are spoken 
by the angel in the name of God. The angel person- 
ates God in the seventh verse, and from the tenth to 
the sixteenth. In the sixth verse the angels speaks : 
" These saying are faithful and true ; and the Lord God 
of the holy prophets hath sent his angel to show unto 
his servants the things which must shortly be done," 
and says, that is, God says through him, u Behold, I 
come quickly ; blessed is he that keepeth the words of 
the prophecy of this book." Then the angel speaks 
again in the name of God, in the tenth verse : " Seal 
not the words of the prophecy of this book, for the 
time is at hand. Behold I come quickly, and my 
reward is with me, to give to every man according as 
his work shall be." This is partly a quotation from 
the tenth verse of the fortieth chapter of Isaiah. 
u Behold, the Lord God will come with a strong hand, 
and his arm shall rule for him ; behold, his reward is 
with him, and his work before him." The angel goes 
on to speak in the name of God : "I am Alpha and 
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the 
end." 

This is all agreeable to the Messianic idea, to which 
the whole structure of the book is conformed. Christ 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 143 

is nowhere represented as coming alone to reign and 
establish his kingdom. He always comes with God to 
reign under him. As Judge, he says, u Come, ye 
blessed of my Father." He cannot come by his own 
power, nor does he himself know when that period 
shall be. For Paul says : c; Until the appearing of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, which in his own times. He shall 
show, w T ho is the blessed and only Potentate, the 
King of kings and Lord of lords." According to the 
conception of this book, God himself is to come and 
dwell among men. " And I heard a great voice out of 
heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with 
men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his 
people, and God himself shall be with them, and be 
their God." The Messiah is to reign with him, or 
under him, and share his throne. In the heavenly 
Jerusalem is to be u the throne of God and the 
Lamb." The coming of God is to be simultaneous 
with the coming of Christ. So Paul represents in his 
first Epistle to the Thessalonians. " Even so, them 
which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him" 
This being the case, that, according to the Messianic 
ideas of the Jews, Christ and God were both to come 
to reign over the church, to raise the dead, and to 
judge the world, there is no objection to interpreting 
the declaration, " Behold, I come quickly," as having 
been spoken by the angel in the person of God, and 
all ground is removed for the assertion, that Jesus and 
God are represented as identical. 

Such, then, are the doctrinal aspects of the Book of 
Revelation. So far is it from teaching the Trinity, 



144 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

or anything approaching to it. So strictly and abso- 
lutely does it maintain the unity of God, the inferiority 
and dependence of Christ, and the impersonality of the 
Holy Spirit. 



LECTURE VII. 



INCARNATION. 
COLOSSIANS, II. 9. 

FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. 

Among the doctrines involved in the Trinity., is that 
of the Incarnation, as it is called. That doctrine I 
propose now to consider ; first, what it is, and in the 
second place, how it is proved. The doctrine is, that 
God the Son, at the conception of Jesus, became 
connected in some mysterious way with his human soul, 
so that a person was formed, the elements of which 
were, a human soul, the second Person of the Trinity, 
and a human body. This is called the mystery of the 
incarnation. I propose to consider first the doctrine, 
and then those passages of Scripture which are thought 
to prove it. 

It is not too much to say, that the whole doctrine of 
the Trinity depends upon it. And not only so, it 
depends on the utmost nicety of definition. If it is 
proved, that the whole Deity became incarnate in 
Christ, then the doctrine of the Trinity is gone, for 
then all distinction of persons is lost, and all those 
13 



146 INCARNATION. 

relations of the persons to each other, which are ne- 
cessary to the atonement, will be destroyed. Then, if 
incarnation is made to mean the simple indwelling of 
the Deity in Christ, then the Trinity is equally de- 
stroyed. In that case, it will merely amount to a 
sensible presence of God in the soul of Christ, a con- 
scious communion of Christ with God, whereas his 
presence, though actually pervading all spirits, is usually 
unconscious and insensible. 

When we speak of the incarnation of God, various 
relations of the Deity to time and space are suggested, 
of the most puzzling character. The unchangeable, 
(for all the attributes of Deity must be possessed, and 
equally, by each person of the Trinity,) changes his 
mode of existence. After having existed from all 
eternity in a purely spiritual state, he commences an 
existence in connection with a corporeal frame and a 
finite soul. He, who fills immensity, and who of 
course cannot change his place, becomes incarnate in 
a habitation of clay, the intimate associate, and more, 
of an infant, subject to an infant's wants and weak- 
nesses. Sometimes the human soul is asleep, as when 
Christ and his disciples were in the ship. Then the 
thought is suggested, how this could be, when the 
Divine Mind never slumbereth nor sleepeth ? What sort 
of a union could there be between a slumbering soul 
and a God who cannot sleep ? The incarnation of 
God is a thought which does not bear examination. 
The more we think of it, the more improbable it be- 
comes. It is not only antecedently improbable, but it 
does not agree with the actual history of Jesus of 



INCARNATION. 147 

Nazareth. Were there a real incarnation, then the 
complex person so composed must have possessed 
intrinsically all Divine attributes ; Jesus Christ, or the 
person who went by that name, must have been om- 
nipotent and omniscient ; and if this combination was 
necessary to his official character, then whenever he 
spoke or acted in his official character, he ought to 
have possessed these atrributes. Every instance, then, 
in which Christ spoke or acted in his official character, 
as dependent for power or knowledge, he contradicted 
or disclaimed the doctrine of incarnation. He who 
affirms that God gave the spirit to Christ not by mea- 
sure, denies the doctrine of incarnation. He, who 
was composed of one mind, which was God, and 
another mind, which was man, could not receive the 
Spirit without measure, could not receive the Spirit at 
all ; for that which is infinite can receive no increase, 
that which is omniscient cannot be inspired, that which is 
omnipotent can receive no accession of power. On 
one occasion he says of himself, u that he could pray 
the Father, and he would send him more than twelve 
legions of angels." If the Supreme Ruler of the 
Universe w T ere incarnate in him, what need of any 
prayer ? He might have commanded them himself, 
without any prayer. Go with him, then, in his agony in 
garden. If omnipotence made a part of his person, 
whence that agony, whence that prayer ? If omnipo- 
tence was within him, why should he have prayed to 
omnipotence without him. And then, when he was 
crucified, how could he utter that prayer, u Father, 
into thy hand I commend my spirit." Or how could 



148 INCARNATION. 

he utter that exclamation, " My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me ? " Did the Divine part for- 
sake and abandon the human in this trying hour ? Was 
the connection of Christ's human and divine nature of 
such a kind, that it could be dissolved ? Then the 
incarnation ceased some time before Christ's death, and 
the divine and human natures parted company. And 
if they remained united, how could the human nature 
complain that it was forsaken of the divine ? 

But texts of the Scriptures are appealed to, which 
are alleged to prove, that what seems so improbable 
or impossible, was actually the fact. I propose in this 
lecture to consider some of them. 

The strongest text upon this point, would, at first 
sight, seem to be that which I quoted at the commence- 
ment of this lecture. " In him dwelleth all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily." This seems to be strong 
language, and if it will not prove an incarnation of God, 
it would seem to show an indwelling of God in Christ 
of a similar kind to that of which Christ speaks when 
he says, " The Father that dwellejh in me, he doeth 
the works." I had once selected this passage as a 
text for a discourse, setting forth the intimate connec- 
tion of God with Christ. But in order to be sure of 
my ground, I investigated the passage with the best 
critical helps, and by a comparison of it with parallel 
passages. But as I advanced, I began to perceive, 
and the further I went on, the more I became con- 
vinced, that it had nothing to do with the subject ; till 
at last, as an honest man, I was forced to give it up, 
and take some other text to show the connection 



INCARNATION. 



149 



between God and Christ. " The fulness of the God- 
head," I found, meant neither the essence of God, 
nor his attributes, but the whole body of believers, 
the Christian church, gathered from all nations and lan- 
guages and tongues, gathered together in Christ. The 
inquirer is driven into this result by the comparison of 
parallel passages, in this same Epistle, and in that to 
the Ephesians. These two Epistles were written at 
the same time, and sent by the same messenger. And 
every person finds himself prone, under those circum- 
stances, to run into the same thoughts and a similar 
mode of expression. One leading thought of Paul at 
this time, and at all times, was the amalgamation of 
Jews and Gentiles, all mankind indeed, in the Christ- 
ian church. The Jewish law, instead of bringing man- 
kind together, had tended rather to separate them, to 
build up a middle wall of separation between them. 
Christ had come, according to God's eternal purpose, 
hitherto concealed, to give a religion for aZZ, which he 
consummated and sanctioned by dying upon the cross 
for the benefit of all. u Having made known unto us 
the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure 
which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispen- 
sation of the fulness of times, he might gather together 
in one all things in Christ." What he means, is 
further explained in what follows. " Whereby, when 
ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the 
mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made 
known to the children of men, as it is now revealed 
unto his holy apostles and prophets, that the Gentiles 
should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and par- 
13* 



150 INCARNATION. 

takers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." " But 
now in Christ Jesus, ye, who were sometime afar off, 
are made nigh by the blood of Christ, for he is our 
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down 
the middle wall of partition between us, having abol- 
ished in his flesh," that is, by being crucified for all, 
and by his blood ratifying the new and universal cov- 
enant, u having abolished the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances, for to make 
in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. 
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body 
by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." u For 
this cause, I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in hea- 
ven and earth is named." In another place ; " And 
hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be 
head over all things to the church, which is his body, 
the fulness of him that jilleth all in all." u The 
church," " his body," and " the fulness of him that 
filleth all in all," mean the same thing, — the great body 
of Christians on earth and in heaven. When the Apostle 
wrote to the Colossians at the same time, he varied 
the form of expression. " Beware lest any man spoil 
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tra- 
dition of men, and not after Christ. For in him dwell- 
eth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." What is, 
in the other Epistle, " the fulness of him that filleth all 
things," is here, " the fulness of God." And both 
phrases are merely equivalent to this : cc The church, 
the great multitude of Christians, are vitally united to 
Christ as their head, are connected with him in a 



INCARNATION. 151 

body." In one place, and by one figure, Paul calls 
the church " Christ's body," and he is its head. In 
another, it is " a temple," built on the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, and Christ is the chief 
corner-stone. In another case, it is " the whole fam- 
ily in heaven and earth." In the case which we are 
considering, it is " the whole multitude of the wor- 
shippers of God, assembled in Christ as a temple." 
" The fulness of God," then, has nothing to do with 
God's dwelling in Christ, or manifesting his attributes 
through him. The church, which is his body, the 
fulness of him that filleth all things, and the whole fam- 
ily in heaven and earth, is the same with u all the ful- 
ness of God." The simple meaning is, then, that the 
whole Christian church is in vital union with Christ, 
and depends upon him, are taught by him, and there- 
fore they want no other teacher. And whatever mean- 
ing you may choose to put on it, will prove nothing as 
to the doctrine of incarnation, for Paul wishes of 
ordinary Christians, that " they may be filled with all 
the fulness of God." If such language proves that 
God became incarnate in Christ, it will likewise prove 
that God became incarnate in his whole church. If it 
does not prove that God became incarnate in his church, 
so neither will it prove that he became incarnate in 
Christ. 

There is another passage, which has been thought to 
intimate, if not prove, the incarnation of the Deity, or 
the first Person of the Trinity in Christ. It is found 
in the second chapter of Philippians. u Let this 
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus : 
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 



152 INCARNATION. 

to be equal with God ; but made himself of no repu- 
tation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and 
was made in the likness of men ; and being found in 
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name that is above every name; that at the name 
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven 
and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Since I have been able to read this passage in the orig- 
inal, one of the greatest marvels to me in theology has 
been, that this passage has been adduced to prove the in- 
carnation of Deity. It occurs in a paragraph inculcating 
humility. u Let the same mind be in you, which was 
also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God," &c. 
This is carried back into eternity, before the incarna- 
tion, but without the least reason, and against all rea- 
son. There was no such person in existence as Christ 
Jesus, before the incarnation, even according to the 
Trinitarian hypothesis. Jesus was the name of a man, 
who was born in Judea. Christ Jesus is the name of 
the same person considered as the Messiah. The 
name Christ Jesus, therefore, can refer to him only 
after his birth. To be in the form of God, means to be 
God, it is said. But it was something which he could 
put off, for he thought his equality or likeness to God, 
to be a thing not eagerly to be retained, but made him- 
self of no reputation, literally, emptied himself. This 
certainly could not be, if the likeness to God consisted 



INCARNATION. 153 

in essential and inherent attributes. He took the form 
of a servant, literally, a slave. If being in the form of 
God, necessarily meant being God, so taking the form 
of a slave, must mean that he became a slave, which 
was not a fact. " Being in the likeness of man, 
and formed in fashion as a man, he humbled himself 
and became obedient even unto death," so far as to 
die obedient to God, of course, u even the death of the 
cross." The cross was the lowest punishment, and 
the most vile and infamous ; only inflicted on slaves, and 
the meanest and most degraded of mankind. " There- 
fore God hath highly exalted him." What language 
is this ? The second Person of the Trinity die on 
the cross ! The second Person of the Trinity exalted 
by God in consequence of his obedience ! Here must 
be some mistake. " And given him a name that is 
above every name." Can God give God a name ? 
u that at the name," literally, " in the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
The homage done to Christ, cannot, of course, be 
supreme, because it is given by the command and 
authority of a higher poiver, and obedience to that 
command will redound to the honor of that higher 
power, namely, God the Father. If it were given 
to him as supreme, it would derogate from the glory of 
God. 

The explanation, then, of this passage, which inter- 
prets it to mean an incarnation, is encompassed with 
many inextricable difficulties, any one of which is 
totally insurmountable. What then does it mean ? 



154 



INCARNATION 



Let the same humble disposition be in you, which 
was also in Christ Jesus, who when he was here on 
earth, though clothed with the power, and endowed 
with the wisdom of God, did not assume an external 
dignity and state corresponding to his endowments, 
but assumed an appearance lowly and humble as a slave. 
He humbled himself still farther. He not only was 
subject to all the sufferings of humanity, but consented 
to die upon the cross, that most ignominious of deaths, 
in obedience to the will of God. But those sufferings 
have been the means of his exaltation. They made 
him the head of the new dispensation, and caused him 
to be regarded with reverence, not only by the whole 
Christian church, but by the inhabitants of the invisible 
world. u God raised him from the dead," as the 
same Apostle says in another place, " and set him at 
his own right hand, far above all principality and power, 
and every name that is named, not only in this world, 
but in that which is to come." 

There is another passage nearly parallel to this in 
the eighth chapter of Second Corinthians : u For ye 
know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though 
he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that 
ye, by his poverty, might be made rich." This, like 
the other, has been carried back before the birth of 
Christ, and interpreted to mean that he was rich in a 
state of preexistent glory ; that he renounced those 
riches, and came into this poor state of existence, that 
he might enrich his followers. 

But the same objection lies against this, as against 
the other interpretation. We have no authority for 



INCARNATION. 155 

carrying back the phrase, " our Lord Jesus Christ," 
before the birth of Jesus ; and if so, such an inter- 
pretation falls immediately to the ground. As Jesus 
never was rich, in a literal sense, so he could not 
become poor, in a literal sense. It can refer there- 
fore only to his choice of a life of poverty and priva- 
tion, in preference to a life of affluence and splendor. 
He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves 
and fishes, could not want anything. He who could 
call up the hidden treasures of the deep to pay his tribute 
to the temple, must have voluntarily chosen to pass 
through life with not where to lay his head. The word 
rendered tc became poor," has not any change of con- 
dition as its primitive and general meaning, but rather 
to live in a condition of poverty. The meaning there- 
fore is, that Jesus Christ chose to live among men in a 
condition of poverty and destitution, when he had the 
means of assuming a more affluent condition. That 
riches, in this case, does not mean absolute wealth, is 
likewise gathered from what comes after: " That ye by 
his poverty might he made rich ; " not rich in this 
world's goods, but in spiritual possessions. 

There is another text, which would have a bearing 
on the subject of this lecture, were the reading in our 
common Bibles the true one. It is in First of Timothy, 
third chapter, sixteenth verse. " God was manifested 
in the flesh, justified of the spirit, seen of angels, 
preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and 
received up in glory." But as it happens, nothing is 
more uncertain than the reading of this verse. There 
are three different ways in which this appears in 



156 INCARNATION. 

ancient manuscripts of the Bible. The best authen- 
ticated, and that for which there is the greatest amount 
of evidence, is, " .He, who was manifested in the flesh, 
was justified in the spirit." The next reading, in 
amount of authority is, " Great is the mystery of god- 
liness, which was manifested in the flesh." The whole 
Roman Catholic Church, all over the world, knows no 
other reading than this, as you may see any day you 
choose to examine a Catholic Bible. The least au- 
thority is in favor of our common reading, " God was 
manifested in the flesh." Griesbach, the best authority 
upon this subject, in his critical edition of the New 
Testament, has, u He who was manifested in the 
flesh." This reading agrees best with the general 
drift of the passage. It does not make good sense to 
say that God was justified in the spirit, or that he was 
seen of angels, any more when in a state of incarnation, 
than when in a purely spiritual state ; nor does it agree 
with the attributes of God, to say that he, who cannot 
change place, was received up in glory. All these 
things were true of Christ, considered as the sent of 
God, which is the meaning, if we receive as the true 
reading, u He who." 

Many Christians imagine that the incarnation may be 
proved from one of the first sentences of Christ's 
prayer with his disciples. " And now, O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the gloryl had 
with thee before the world was." But this prayer, 
instead of favoring the doctrine of the Trinity, is 
directly against it. According to the Trinitarian hy- 
pothesis, the only part of Christ which could have 



INCARNATION. 157 

existed before the world, was his divine nature, and 
his divine nature was God, or a Person of the Trinity, 
possessing all divine attributes. An equal person of 
the Trinity could not have received glory from God 
before the world was, could not have received glory at 
all. But what makes it still worse for Trinitarianism, 
he prays, as the Son, " Glorify thy Son;" he identifies 
himself with the Son, and as the Son he prays ; u And 
this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." 
The Father, then, to whom he prays, is not a Person 
of a Trinity, but the whole Deity, the only true God ; 
and the Son prays for a glory which he had with the 
only true God before the world was. Here, then, is 
the Son shut out of Deity by his own words. No 
Trinitarian, of course, will admit that the Son received 
glory from the only true God before the world was. 
We are driven out of the Trinitarian exposition, and 
but one explanation remains, that no incarnation is 
meant or implied in the case. The glory, for which 
Christ prays, is that which was destined for him as the 
Messiah, before the world was ; that is, the glory of 
redeeming and saving the world. And this makes it 
consistent with what comes after, his saying that he 
imparts this glory to his disciples. "And the glory 
which thou hast given me, I have given them," that is, 
of saving mankind. By the same figure, we are said 
to have been cc chosen in Christ, before the foundation 
of the world." If we insist on interpreting figures 
literally, not only Christ existed before the foundation 
of the world, but we his followers. If such language 
14 



158 



INCARNATION. 



does not prove that we existed then, so neither does it 
prove that Christ existed then. So when Christ says, 
" Before Abraham was, I am," he does not assert that 
he existed before Abraham in any other way than in the 
counsels of God. It was only by a strong figure, that 
Abraham could have been said to have seen Christ's 
day, which did not really exist for almost two thousand 
years after, and it was scarcely a stronger figure for 
him to say that he was the JMessiah before Abraham. 
I am aware, that this sentence of Christ's conversation 
with the Jews, is thought, even by scholars, to assert 
that Jesus existed before he came into the world. I 
believe that it has no such meaning, and from the fol- 
lowing considerations. The main subject of this con- 
versation of Christ with the Jews, was his claims to the 
Messiahship. Those he strenuously asserts. " It is 
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is 
true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and 
the Father, that sent me, beareth witness of me." 
They cavil at this argument, and he subjoins, " When 
ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know 
that I am he." His words are literally " that I am." 
The word u /ie" is added by the translators, as is 
indicated by its being printed in italics in our Bibles. 
The form of expression is precisely the same that it 
is in the sentence, " Before Abraham was, I am." 
Now if our translators had supplied the word he, in 
this case likewise, as they ought to have done, the true 
meaning w r ould have been given, and a false inference 
have been prevented, by which so many millions have 
been misled. The second consideration, that puts the 



INCARNATION. 159 

meaning of this passage beyond a doubt, is, that it can 
be shown, that at that period, the phrase " I am," 
interred by one claiming to be the Messiah, was an 
ellipsis, there being understood after it the w r ords, cc the 
Christ." This can be conclusively proved in the fol- 
lowing way. Matthew tells us that Jesus said, on a 
certain occasion, Ct Many shall come in my name, 
saying, I am the Christ, and shall deceive many." 
Mark reports him to have said : " Many shall come 
in my name, saying, I am, and shall deceive many." 
So it is reported by Luke. That the words " the 
Christ " are left out in both these cases in the original, 
you may ascertain by referring to your Bibles, where 
you will find, in both Mark and Luke, the w T ord 
" Christ " printed in italics. It appears by this that 
when Jesus did not use the words, cc the Christ," in 
connection with u I am," they were understood by his 
hearers, and would be understood and supplied by the 
readers of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Much 
more would they be supplied in the minds of those 
Jews whom he was then addressing, as he had used 
the same words in the same sense twice in the same 
conversation. u When ye have lifted up the Son of 
man, then shall ye know that I am." In the twenty- 
fourth verse of the same eighth chapter of John, he 
had said, " If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die 
in your sins." We cannot suppose, for a moment, 
that this is a mere affirmation of existence. They 
could not doubt of his existence, and belief in his sim- 
ple existence could do them no good. It is the affirm- 
ation of a certain character, or office, that he meant, 



160 INCARNATION. 

not mere existence. He meant to say, therefore, " If 
ye believe not that I am the Christ, ye shall die in your 
sins." Nor would the affirmation of mere existence 
suit the general object of the conversation, where it 
occurs in the sentence, " Before Abraham was, I am." 
The object of the whole conversation is to prove his 
claim to the Messiahship. To affirm that he existed 
before Abraham, would have been nothing to the pur- 
pose. He might have existed ages before Abraham, 
and still have had no mission to mankind. But to say, 
cc Before Abraham was, I am the Christ," has a 
meaning in coincidence with the purpose of the whole 
conversation. u Not only am I the Christ, but I was 
so in the eternal purpose of God before Abraham." 

There is an associated idea of his superiority to 
Abraham, which does not at once strike the reader of 
this conversation. The introduction of Abraham into 
this discussion, was altogether accidental, and it came 
from the Jews, and not from Jesus. He had said to 
them, " Verily, Verily, I say unto you, If a man keep 
my sayings, he shall never see death." The Jews 
thought this the assertion of extravagant claims, and 
asked him if he pretended to be greater than Abraham, 
the founder of their nation, and, in their estimation, 
the greatest man of all time, except the promised Mes- 
siah. He is dead, said they, and the prophets ; whom 
would you make yourself? u Jesus answered, If I 
honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is my Father 
that honoreth me, of whom ye say that he is your 
God." I assume only that rank which God has given 
me in the arrangement of the world, that God, whom 



INCARNATION. 161 

you claim as your national God. He has made me 
greater than Abraham. " Your father Abraham re- 
joiced to see my day ; and he saw it and was glad." 
He looked forward prophetically to my times, and 
rejoiced in the prospect, as of something greatly su- 
perior to his own. The Jews began again to cavil, and to 
take him in a sense which he did not intend. " Thou 
art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
ham ? " Jesus annihilates their cavil with a single 
word, and at the same time asserts with a stronger em- 
phasis his claims. cc What I say, has nothing to 
do with my personal existence, or with seeing Abra- 
ham. I mean to say, that I am the Messiah, the 
purposes of whose existence are so vast and import- 
ant, that they overleap Abraham and his times, and 
go back in the Divine plan to the very foundation of the 
world." 

There is another class of passages which are thought 
to have a strong bearing on the doctrine of incarnation, 
in which Christ is said " to have descended from 
heaven," u to be in heaven," &c. The most explicit, 
perhaps, is found in the sixth chapter of John : " What 
and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where 
he was before." This is thought most conclusive. For 
if the Son of man ascended up where he was before, 
he must have existed in heaven before he descended 
upon earth and became incarnate. But a little exam- 
ination, I believe, will convince the candid inquirer 
that he meant no such thing. Trace the conversation 
from the commencement, and you will find that he 
identifies his person with his doctrine, which was from 
14* 



162 INCARNATION. 

heaven, and he speaks of himself as taken away from 
the worldly expectations of the Jews, and leaving noth- 
ing but his doctrine behind, which he affirms will still 
be equally powerful, in his personal absence, as his 
personal presence. 

The conversation was introduced by the miracle of 
the feeding of five thousand with a few loaves and 
fishes. This bore so strong a resemblance to the mira- 
cle of Moses, of feeding the Israelites in the wilderness 
with manna, that those who saw and ate were reminded 
of the prophecy of Moses, and induced to think that 
Jesus answered the description of that prophet which 
Moses promised, when he said, 4C I will raise them up a 
prophet from among their brethren, like unto me." This 
prophecy they thought fulfilled in Jesus, who had just 
fed them miraculously in a desert place. " Then those 
men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, 
said, This is of a truth, that Prophet that should come 
into the world." This miracle confirmed their earthly 
notions of the Messiah, and many of them followed 
him, with no purpose of being benefitted by his teach- 
ing, but of obtaining a support without labor, and per- 
haps of sharing the wordly advantages of his kingdom. 
He reproves their gross ideas, and admonishes them : 
u Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that 
which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of 
man shall give you." They attempt to stimulate him 
to work another similar miracle, by the example of 
Moses. " Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, 
as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to 
eat." Jesus seizes on the phrase, " bread from 



INCARNATION. 163 

heaven," as a fitting means of turning their attention to 
his doctrines, as the only reason for which they ought 
to follow him. " Then said Jesus unto them, Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread 
from heaven." That was not heavenly bread, w r hich 
Moses gave you. u But my Father is now giving you 
the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is 
he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to 
the world : " spiritual life, of course. The world was 
not to eat him, literally, but only receive his doctrine. 
This he goes on to explain. u I am the bread of life. 
He that cometh to me shall never hunger , and he that 
believeth in me shall never thirst." Here we see in 
what sense he is the bread of life. — as a teacher. His 
doctrine is the bread of life, and he identifies himself 
with his doctrine ; and as his doctrine came from heaven, 
as the Jews asserted the manna did which their fathers 
eat in the desert, to keep up the parallel, he speaks of 
himself as having come down from heaven. The Jews 
murmured among themselves at his use of so strong a 
figure as calling himself the bread of life. " Is not this 
Jesus," said they, u the son of Joseph, whose father 
and whose mother we know ? How does he say, I 
came down from heaven ? " He answers, that their 
misunderstanding of his language arises from their per- 
versity, and not from his obscurity. He, however, 
defines w 7 hat he had said. u He that believeth on me hath 
life everlasting." Still he does not drop the figure of 
bread, but resumes it, and adds another idea to it, that 
it is living bread, has the power of communicating 
eternal life. " I am the living bread, that came down 



164 



INCARNATION. 



from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall 
live forever." This conception of himself as the bread 
of life, suggested to him another thought, that he could 
become the bread of life only by dying. In no other 
way could he confer spiritual life upon mankind. He 
therefore goes on to hint the doctrine, so revolting to 
a Jew, and especially those of so worldly a character 
as those whom he was then addressing, that he, as their 
Messiah, must c/ie, instead of reigning over them as 
their temporal king. ii And the bread that I shall give 
you, is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the 
world." Here the Jews, probably perceiving the drift 
of his remarks, begin to cavil again ; " How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat ? " Jesus proceeds to teach 
the revolting doctrine in still stronger terms. u Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of man," the Messiah, u and drink his blood, 
ye have no life in you." With your present ideas of 
the Messiah, you can have no spiritual life. You 
expect that he will supply your temporal wants, and 
minister to your worldly ambition. He must die, and 
disappoint that hope, before you will understand the 
real purposes of his mission, and receive from him 
that spiritual benefit which he comes to confer. ;; He 
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- 
lasting life." He who receives me as a suffering Mes- 
siah, and embraces those doctrines which I lay down 
my life to communicate, shall be forever happy. " For 
my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." 
So necessary is my death to give efficacy to my doc- 



INCARNATION. 165 

trines, that my body and blood may be said to be the 
nourishment of my followers. u He that eateth my 
flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in 
him." As food that is eaten, enters into the human 
body, is incorporated with it, and gives it life, so shall 
my doctrines, with which I am myself identified, and 
which I shall die to impart and confirm, enter the mind 
that receives them, and make a part of it, and give it 
life and strength." " As the living Father hath sent 
me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, 
even he shall live by me." My mission and doctrines 
are from God, the source of all life. He is the source 
of life to me. My doctrines have power, because 
they come from him. So, when communicated to 
others, they shall impart to them spiritual life. " This 
is the bread which came down from heaven." This is 
the true heavenly bread, of which I have been dis- 
coursing. " Not as your fathers did eat manna in the 
wilderness, and are dead ; he that eateth of this bread 
shall live forever." The bread which your fathers ate 
in the wilderness, sustained a mere animal life, which 
soon came to a close. My doctrines confer eternal 
blessedness. 

The literal import of this conversation was suffi- 
ciently revolting. The thought of eating human flesh, 
and drinking human blood, w r as to a Jew most shock- 
ing, after the horror which their law inculcated of even 
touching a dead body, and its awful threatenings to those 
who eat the blood, even of an animal. But its figurative 
and symbolic meaning was no less so. In these dark say- 
ings was shadowed forth another truth, that he was to 



166 INCARNATION. 

die, instead of u abiding forever," and reigning over 
them in splendor and glory, as they expected their Mes- 
siah to do. They murmured about it, and complained 
of it. But he, perceiving their dissatisfaction, so far 
from retracting anything, goes on to add another truth, 
still more offensive, that he was to be taken away from 
them altogether. u Doth this offend you ? What and 
if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he 
was before." He had spoken of his advent, as " coming 
down from heaven, because he identified himself with 
his doctrine as the bread of life. He now merely 
carries out the figure by speaking of his departure, as 
ascending up as the Son of man, where he was before 
as the bread of life. The place to which he went, is a 
point of no importance in this conversation, but only 
the fact of his being removed from them, as we see by 
what follows. The point is, that, personally, he was 
to be entirely taken away from their worldly expecta- 
tions. But that, he subjoins, is of no consequence. 
My bodily presence is nothing. My doctrines are all. 
And they would remain, and be equally powerful, to 
give spiritual life to the world, in my personal absence, 
as my personal presence. cc The flesh profiteth nothing ; 
spirit alone quickeneth. The words that I speak to you, 
they are spirit, and they are life." My words, being 
spirit and life, are not confined, like my person, 
to one place or age, but will live, and reign, and 
sanctify the world, when I am no longer personally 
in it. 

There are two passages in Paul's first Epistle to 
the Corinthians, which have done much to produce, or 



INCARNATION. 167 

at least to confirm, the doctrine of incarnation. The 
first is this. u For they drank of that spiritual Rock 
which followed them ; and that Rock was Christ." 
The second is a few verses further. " Neither let us 
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were 
destroyed of serpents." From these passages it is 
argued, that as the Rock which supplied the Israelites 
in the wilderness was Christ, he must have been pres- 
ent with them, and if they tempted him, he must have 
been, not only present, but their leader. If so, he 
then existed, and afterwards became incarnate. 

To explain the first of these texts, it will be necessary 
to consider the purpose of the writer in instituting this 
comparison between Christians under Christ, and the 
Israelites under Moses in the wilderness. His purpose 
is to dissuade the Christians from idolatry, and from 
partaking of idolatrous feasts. In order to do this, he 
reminds them of the fate of the Israelites in the desert, 
who were guilty of the same. To partake of the sacri- 
fices, is an act of treason to Christ and to God ; just as 
partaking of idolatrous sacrifices in the wilderness, was 
an act of treason to Moses and to God. Baptism, and 
partaking of the Lord's supper, are, under the Christian 
dispensation, a profession of allegiance to Christ and 
to God. It is inconsistent with this allegiance, thus 
professed, to go and partake of a sacrifice offered to 
an idol, as it is an acknowledgment of his divinity, and 
of allegiance to him. He therefore runs a parallel 
between baptism and the supper, and what happened 
to the Israelites, as to the obligations they created. 
u Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, 



168 INCARNATION. 

how that our fathers were under the cloud, and under 
the sea, and were all baptized into Moses, in the cloud 
and in the sea." This great miracle of the passage of 
the Israelites through the sea, bore a strong resem- 
blance to Christian baptism, as it in a manner conse- 
crated the whole nation to Moses as their leader, and 
God their deliverer, secured their faith in the divine 
communion and authority of Moses, and bound them 
to obedience to him alone. "And did all eat of that 
spiritual food." The word " spiritual," here signifies 
supernatural, sacred, miraculously given, so that those 
who partook of it felt that it brought them into a pecu- 
liar relation to God, and under peculiar obligation to 
be his alone. That food, therefore, to them, was 
analogous to the bread of the communion to Christians; 
that is, a pledge of allegiance to God and to Christ. 
" And did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they 
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them ; and 
that Rock was Christ." The water they drank 
was as miraculously given them as their bread. It 
flowed from a rock ; and as that water answers to the 
wine of the communion, so that Rock, from which it 
flowed, answers to Christ, whose blood, which flowed 
from him in his crucifixion, is symbolically given to 
Christians in the communion. 

Now after having been thus bound to God, by what 
answered to baptism and the Lord's supper, the Is- 
raelites broke their allegiance, and became idolaters. 
" Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them ; as 
it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, 
and rose up to play." In consequence of their sins, 



INCARNATION. 169 

idolatry among the rest, they perished in the wilderness. 
u But with many of them God was not pleased ; for 
they were overthrown in the wilderness." If it was 
then so criminal in them to be guilty of idolatry, after 
the baptism of the Red Sea, and the communion of 
the manna from heaven, and of the water poured by 
divine power from the rock, it must be no less so for 
Christians to go and sit in an idol's temple, and partake 
of the sacrifices, after professing allegiance to Christ 
by the ordinances of his religion. In the phrase, " the 
Rock which followed them," there is an allusion to a 
Rabbinical tradition, that the rock, which Moses smote 
at Horeb, followed the Israelites the whole forty years' 
sojourn in the desert. 

It may be objected to this interpretation, that the 
Apostle says positively, that the Rock was Christ, not 
something corresponding to Christ. It can be shown, 
it may be answered, to be agreeable to the Apostle's 
mode of speech on other subjects. Thus he says pos- 
itively, that Hagar, Sarah's maid, is mount Sinai in 
Arabia. " For it is written, that Abraham had two 
sons ; the one by a bond maid, and the other by a free 
woman. But he who was of the bond maid, was born 
after the flesh, but he of the free woman, was by prom- 
ise. Which things are an allegory, for these are the 
two covenants ; The one from the mount Sina, which 
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar 
is Mount Sina in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusa- 
lem, which now is, and is in bondage w T ith her chil- 
dren." It is no more necessary that Christ should be 
the rock which supplied the Israelites with water in the 
15 



170 INCARNATION. 

desert, than that Hagar should literally have been 
mount Sinai, but only that he corresponded to it. 
The other passage is: " Neither let us tempt Christ, 
as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by 
serpents." This is thought to assert, that the Israel- 
ites tempted Christ in the desert. If he was tempted, 
he must have been there to be tempted, and of course 
existed at that time. This would certainly have been 
the meaning, if there had been the pronoun, him, after 
the second tempted, if it had read thus : u Neither let 
us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted him." 
But as it now stands, we are at liberty to supply Moses 
or God, in the place of "him," according to the gen- 
eral drift of the passage. Neither let us tempt Christ, 
as some of them tempted Moses, or tempted God, or 
tempted Moses and God, or God through Moses. We 
will cite the passage of the Old Testament which is 
alluded to, and we shall there find, that there is no 
mention of Christ directly or indirectly. u And they 
journeyed from Mount Hor, by the way of the Red 
Sea, to compass the land of Edom ; and the soul of 
the people was much discouraged because of the way. 
And the people spake against God and against J\£oses, 
Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die 
in the wilderness, for there is no bread, neither is there 
any water, and our soul loatheth this light bread. And 
the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and 
they bit the people ; and much people of Israel died." 
There is no evidence here, certainly, that Christ had 
anything to do with the temptation in the wilderness. 
But the language of the Old Testament throws a strong 



INCARNATION. 171 

light on the language of the New. It shows, to my 
mind, that Paul considered Christ to sustain the same 
relation to Christians, as Moses did to the Israelites, 
as their leader and head. u And the people spake 
against God and against Moses, Wherefore have ye 
brought us up out of Egypt ? " It is no more a proof 
that Paul regarded Christ as God, that he warns Chris- 
tians not to tempt him, than it is a proof that Moses is 
God, because he is associated with God in the lan- 
guage, " the people spake against God and against 
Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up." It does 
prove, however, what is evident in other parts of the 
New Testament, that the early Christians, during the 
age of miracles at least, considered Jesus as their in- 
visible head, and as having the power to interfere mi- 
raculously in their affairs, not indeed as God, but as 
having power from God. 

The superintendence which the Apostles considered 
Christ to exercise over his Church, during their age, 
and the source from which he derived his power to 
exercise that superintendence, may be learned from the 
speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost. " This 
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. 
Therefore being Ly the right hand of God exalted, 
and having received of the Father the promise of the 
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye see and 
hear." Likewise from their devotions afterwards, when 
suffering persecution. " They lifted up their voice to 
God, with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, 
which hast made heaven, and the sea, and all that in 
them is." — u And now, Lord, behold their threat- 



172 INCARNATION. 

enings, and grant unto thy servants, that with all bold- 
ness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy 
hand to heal ; and that signs and wonders may be done 
in the name of thy holy servant Jesus." Such was 
the origin of Christ's superintending power over the 
church in the days of the Apostles. It was not orig- 
inal, but derived and delegated. 

Such are some of the principal texts by which 
the doctrine of the second Person of the Trinity 
is thought to be sustained, and I have now laid 
before you the reasons why they seem to me unsatis- 
factory. 

I have now r , in the seven lectures I have delivered, 
gone over the most important portions of the Scrip- 
tures, from which the doctrine of the Trinity is de- 
rived, and I have given you what I suppose to be the 
true interpretation of those passages. I set up no 
claim of infallibility. I speak as to wise men. Judge 
ye what I say. Such were the scattered hints from 
which a plurality in the Divine Nature was inferred, 
elaborated by the ingenuity of centuries into a dogma 
of faith, and finally forced upon the world by the arm 
of the civil power. So interwoven has it become 
with sacred associations, as almost to paralyze the 
mind which attempts to investigate its truths, and to 
sustain itself, not so much on the ground of argument, 
as proscription. 

My object has been, to show that the Scriptures 
teach no such doctrine, but that God is one, one in 
essence and in person, possessing exclusive and incom- 



INCARNATION. 173 

municable attributes ; that Christ is one, is a derived 
and dependent being, and is our Saviour, because he 
has been made so by his Father and our Father, by his 
God and our God. 



15* 



LECTURE VIII. 



GOD AND CHRIST. 
I. TIMOTHY, II. 5. 



FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE 
MAN CHRIST JESUS. 



I have hitherto been considering those texts of 
Scripture, which are thought to teach that God sub- 
sists in three persons. I have given those passages 
their true meaning, as I suppose, leaving every person 
to form his own judgment as to the satisfactoriness of 
my explanations. I shall now take the other side, and 
bring forward those passages which prove, not the 
unity of God alone, but shut out of his being every other 
person whom the Trinitarian may be disposed to in- 
clude in it. I shall then consider how the force of 
these passages is evaded, or the explanations which 
are offered to show that these passages are consistent 
with the doctrine that there are three persons in the 
Deity. Every text in the Bible, in which the w T ord 
God appears, without any intimation of plurality in 
his being, is an argument for his unity. The word 
God conveys no idea of plurality. It is connected 



GOD AND CHRIST. 175 

with singular pronouns, "I" and u me ; " is repre- 
sented as one consciousness, one agent, single and un- 
divided. Every such text is an argument for the 
unity of God. Every such text requires of the Trin- 
itarian an explanation, why, in that particular case, the 
language of Scripture is just as it would be if there 
were no such distinction of persons in God. It 
would have been exceedingly easy to have kept up this 
distinction throughout the Bible, by substituting the 
word Trinity for the word God. Then there could 
have been no mistake. If the thing existed, or the 
doctrine existed, no reason certainly can be given, why 
the name should first have come into existence some 
ages after Christ, and after the Bible was finished. It 
would have been equally easy for Moses to have writ- 
ten down, upon the stone at Horeb, u Jehovah your 
God, Jehovah is a Trinity," as u Jehovah is One." 
And it seems to me, if it had been an important doc- 
trine he would have done so. He left a perpetual 
form of benediction to be used by the priests in bless- 
ing the people. "Jehovah bless thee and keep 
thee ; Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and 
be gracious unto thee ; Jehovah lift up his countenance 
upon thee, and give thee peace." Now it would have 
been just as easy, if there were three persons in God, 
to have said : " The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
bless thee, and keep thee," &c. All these things 
must be explained by the Trinitarian, in order to make 
it probable that the doctrine was true, and yet passed 
over in such profound silence. 

But in the New Testament we have better oppor- 



176 GOD AND CHRIST. 

tunities of testing this doctrine. God and Christ are 
often brought together into the same sentence. In 
those cases we have an opportunity of judging what 
relation the writers considered them to bear to each 
other; whether of equal persons in a Trinity, or whether 
Deity is represented as belonging to both. Take, 
for instance, the text with which I commenced this 
lecture ; " There is one God, and one mediator be- 
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Now, 
for myself, I can scarcely conceive of any language, 
which the Apostle could have used, which would more 
explicitly have affirmed the Unity, and denied the 
Trinity. There is one God, not in opposition to the 
many gods of the heathen alone, but to the exclusion 
of the mediator. One argument for the Trinity has 
been, that a mediator must partake of the nature of 
both parties, between whom he mediates. But here 
that argument is cut up by the roots. Here it is 
asserted, that the man Christ Jesus is fully competent 
to that office. What is necessary to the office of a 
mediator ? He must have something to communicate, 
and proper credentials to authenticate his mediation. 
Moses was the mediator of the first covenant. The 
law was the communication with which he was en- 
trusted. The miracles in Egypt, in the Red sea, 
and in the desert, were his credentials. And they 
were effectual to bring about a peculiar relation be- 
tween the Israelites and God, greatly to their advantage. 
So the Gospel, the New Covenant, is the communica- 
tion with which Jesus Christ was entrusted. The 
mission of John the Baptist, his own miracles, death, 



GOD AND CHRIST. 177 

resurrection, and ascension, were the credentials by 
which his mission and his covenant were authenticated. 
And they were effectual to establish a peculiar relation 
between God and the Christian church. No especial 
nature is necessary to the performance of this mediator- 
ship, except such an one as to enable him to deliver 
the message, make the communication, and exhibit the 
miraculous testimonials. To this mediatorship, our 
Apostle declares the man Christ Jesus to have been 
fully competent. He was to originate nothing. ct My 
doctrine," said he, cc is not mine, but his that sent me." 
u I have given them the words, which thou hast given 
me." " I have greater witness than that of John, for 
the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the 
same works that I do bear witness of me, that the 
Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which 
hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." Such is 
the testimony of Christ concerning himself, and it co- 
incides precisely with the Apostle Paul's. He puts bis 
mediatorship, not upon the ground of his nature, but 
on the ground of his commission, on the ground, not of 
hi«s being God, or having in himself any portion of the 
divine nature ; but of his having received his doctrines 
from God, and his having received power from God 
to work miracles, in proof of the divine origin of his 
doctrines. But it is said, that one part of his work 
demanded an infinite agent, the making atonement for 
the sins of the world. This required the second Per- 
son of a Trinity. Sin is an infinite evil, and therefore 
demands an infinite remedy. It is committed against 
an Infinite Being, and therefore must be atoned for by 



178 GOD AND CHRIST. 

an Infinite Being. But these are all human reasonings 
about what facts ought to be, according to human judg- 
ment. It is far safer to go to the Bible, and learn 
what facts are. It is not for man to say, what sort of 
atonement God will accept, even were it conceded that 
he requires a literal satisfaction. Whatever it is, can 
be effectual only by divine appointment. As it hap- 
pens, we have only to complete the sentence, a part of 
which I have taken for my text, to learn the whole 
truth about this matter. " There is one God, and one 
Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 
who gave himself a ransom for all." Here, then, is 
the atoning part of Christ's mediatorship disposed of in 
few words, and declared to have been effected by the 
man Christ Jesus. I say nothing here as to what the 
atonement was, but only remark, that it was effected by 
the man Christ Jesus. 

I now pass on to another passage, which touches 
still nearer the doctrine of the Trinity. It is in the 
First of Corinthians, eighth chapter, and sixth verse. 
" But to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom 
are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus 
Christ, through whom are all things, and we through 
him." The Trinitarian creed says that God is three 
Persons, " The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
This text of Scripture asserts, that God is one, and 
that the Father alone is that God. In saying that 
there is but one God, and that God is the Father, the 
Apostle denies Deity to all besides. There can be no 
such God, as God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost. 
Jesus Christ is Lord. Not only is he different from 



GOD AND CHRIST. 179 

the one God, but is shut out of the Deity by the very 
terms of the proposition. What is it to be Lord ? It 
is simply to have authority. That authority may be 
original or derived. 

Lordship is a communicable attribute. It does not 
determine the nature of the person to whom it belongs. 
We have the authority of Scripture for affirming that 
this Lordship was conferred on Christ. Peter affirms 
that " God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have 
crucified, both Lord and Christ." " Wherefore," on 
account of his voluntary sufferings for the good of man, 
" God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name 
that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that 
he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Lordship, 
then, when applied to Christ, involves, not the presence 
of divine attributes, but the absence of them, because it 
was conferred on him by another. It was conferred by 
God, and it inheres, not in any divine nature in him, 
but in Jesus who was crucified. And what is it to be 
God ? Something very different from being Lord. 
To be God, is to be self-existent, eternal, unchangea- 
ble, the cause and source of existence to everything 
that has a being ; to be the sole sustainer of all things, 
" the former of our bodies, and Father of our spirits." 
These attributes and relations cannot be communicated, 
cannot be shared. No other being can stand in the 
relation of God to us. Names are nothing, if they do 
not correspond to facts. Only one being can stand in 
the relation of God to us. That being, the Apostle 
assures us, is the Father. 



ISO GOD AND CHRIST. 

This diversity of relation is pointed out in this very 
passage. u To us there is but one God, the Father, 
of whom are all things." This phrase, u all things," 
at first sight, has the appearance of meaning the uni- 
verse, but though such a sense is not absolutely ex- 
cluded, the words which succeed, seem to restrain 
the sense to the things which concern Christianity, for 
the Aposile adds, ct and we in him," or rather into 
him, or nearer still, unto him ; meaning, not the relation 
which we naturally sustain to him, but the relation 
into which we have been brought by Christianity, or 
Christ, as God's worshippers, acknowledging our alle- 
giance to him. u And one Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom are all things, and we through him ; " that is, as 
the mediator, through whom we have received all things 
relating to religion, by whose instrumentality we have 
received the blessings of the Gospel, and are the wor- 
shippers of the only living and true God. 

There are other parts of the writings of Paul, which 
ascertain the relation between the Lord here men- 
tioned, and the God here mentioned. Not only is the 
Person, here called God, the one only God, the God 
of the universe, but the God of the Lord that is men- 
tioned in connection with him. In Ephesians, first 
chapter, it is said, " That the God of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the 
spirit of wisdom." This then ought to settle the ques- 
tion, as to the Lord Jesus Christ's being a person of 
the Trinity ; for a person of a Trinity cannot have a 
God. If the Father is the only God, and is the God 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, then there are two reasons 






GOD AND CHRIST. 181 

why Christ cannot be God ; one, that the Father is 
the only God, and another, that he is the God of 
Christ. 

The next passage I shall quote is parallel to the last, 
and occurs in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, fourth 
chapter, and fifth verse. " There is one body, and 
one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your 
calling ; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God 
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, 
and in you all." What I mean especially to point out 
in this quotation is, that Christ and God are spoken of 
in the same sentence as distinct from each other, and 
each as one, having an individuality of his own ; one as 
God, and the other as Lord ; and that these relations 
are not identical, nor the persons who sustain them, 
neither do they interfere with each other. What are 
the plain historical facts, to which this language cor- 
responds ? Jesus represented himself as having been 
sent by God to set up a new religion in the world. 
He was endowed with the knowledge and power which 
were necessary to this purpose. He gathered around 
him a society, of whom he was, under God, the head. 
These disciples called him their Master and Lord. He 
formed a church, and presided over it while here on 
earth. He died for it, and God raised him from the 
dead ; and to confirm the church in their faith in him, 
and their allegiance to him, God continued to him 
those supernatural powers which he had possessed on 
earth ; so that during the apostolic age he held com- 
munication with his apostles, gave them sensible tokens 
of his presence, and of the power with which he had 
16 



182 GOD AND CHRIST. 

been endowed. Miraculous powers were conferred on 
the disciples, according to his promise. He was seen 
in a vision by the martyr Stephen. He appeared to 
Paul, on the way to Damascus, with a striking mani- 
festation of divine power. He often held communica- 
tion with him in the course of his ministry. Various 
supernatural communications were made to the apostles 
during their lifetime, which assured them that he still 
cared for his church. They were made either by him 
in person, or by God, in furtherance of his religion ; so 
that it was the same thing to them, as if they came 
immediately from him. This agency of Christ in the 
world was so firmly fixed in their minds, that they 
joined him with God in their salutations. Though 
invisible, he was still the head of the church, and cared 
for its interests. 

But you will observe, that though associated with 
God in the Epistles, he is nowhere spoken of as God, 
or as a Person of a Trinity, but as a person inferior 
and distinct. " To all that be in Rome, beloved of 
God, called to be saints ; grace to you, and peace 
from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 
Note the wide distinction between God and Christ. 
u From God our Father," not God the Father, which 
the Trinitarian might possibly interpret to mean the first 
Person of a Trinity, but God our Father, the ichole 
Deity, the same Person to whom Christ taught us to 
pray, saying, "Our Father, who art in heaven;" 
u from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 
This is in the Epistle to the Romans. In the other 
Epistles, this salutation is repeated, with this variation 



GOD AND CHRIST. 183 

only, that in some it is, " Grace, mercy, and peace 
from God the Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord," 
showing that our Father and the Father are synony- 
mous; and, therefore, that the Father is not a Person of 
a Trinity, but the whole Deity, without distinction of 
persons. 

Turn then to the doxologies, and see the relation which 
subsists between God and Christ. Immediately after 
the salutation in the second Corinthians, he proceeds. 
u Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Father of all mercies, and the God of all 
comfort." In the close of the Epistle to the Romans ; 
u To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, 
forever. Amen." In his first Epistle to Timothy, 
Paul writes thus, — and I wish you to note the marked 
distinction he makes between God and Christ: U I 
charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, 
and Jesus Christ, who witnessed a good confession, in 
the presence of Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this 
commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the ap- 
pearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his own 
time, He shall show T , who is the blessed and only Poten- 
tate, the King of kings and Lord of lords ; who only 
hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man 
can approach unto ; whom no man hath seen or 
can see : to whom be honor and power everlasting. 
Amen." 

Consider how distinct God and Christ are here kept, 
and what different things are attributed to each. To 
Christ, Ct having witnessed a good confession in the 
presence of Pontius Pilate." To God, being " the 



184 GOD AND CHRIST. 

quickener of all things," or the source of all life. 
Consider what is denied to Christ, and conceded to 
God. u Until the appearance of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which He shall show, who is the blessed and 
only Potentate." The power of coming is not here 
ascribed to our Lord Jesus Christ, but he will come 
by a power derived from God ; literally, u God will 
show his appearing." Does this look as if our Lord 
Jesus Christ was a Person of a Trinity, when he 
cannot return to earth by his own power ? Consider 
then the titles which are applied to God, in contrast 
with what is denied to Christ. He is u the blessed 
and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of 
lords ; w r ho alone hath immortality, dwelling in light 
unapproachable, whom no man hath seen, or can see : 
to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." 
Christ is not even included in the doxology. 

Turn now to the benediction and doxology, at the 
close of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and see the dis- 
tinction which is there put between God and Christ. 
Christ is spoken of as the great Shepherd of the sheep, 
and God as having brought him again from the dead. 
God is represented as working in Christians that which 
is well-pleasing in his sight, through Christ as an instru- 
ment. " Now may the God of peace, who brought 
again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shep- 
herd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting 
covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do 
his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in 
his sight, through Jesus Christ. To him," that is, to 
God, M be glory forever and ever. Amen." Here, 



GOD AND CHRIST. 185 

certainly, are not two equal persons ; but one is God, 
and the other an instrument in his hands, whom he 
raised from the dead. 

Turn now to Ephesians. "Now unto him, that is 
able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can 
ask or think, according to the power that worketh in 
us ; unto him be glory in the church, by Jesus Christ, 
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." I trust 
it would be superfluous to make any more quotations 
in order to show the relations of God and Christ to 
each other, and to show that Christ, by the very terms 
of the most striking doxologies, is not only not included 
in Deity, but shut out of it. Such passages show 
us how far the epithet " Lord," when applied to 
Christ, is intended to go, and how far it stops short of 
Deity. They show us what it is to be God, and what 
it is to be Lord, and therefore explain the passage 
which I quoted them to illustrate ; " One Lord, one 
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who 
is above all, and through all, and in you all." 

I shall have space in this lecture to discuss only one 
of that class of texts, which seem to me to prove the 
absolute unity of God, and at the same time the ex- 
clusion of Christ from all participation in Deity. It is 
found in Christ's last prayer with his disciples. " And 
this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." 
There are several very remarkable features about this 
prayer, bearing upon the point which we are now dis- 
cussing. The Being to whom this prayer is directed, 
is the Being who, throughout the New Testament, is 
16* 



186 GOD AND CHRIST. 

called " the Father," and he here is called the only true 
God. The being who addresses him is Jesus, but 
not only Jesus, but Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah. 
" This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
sent." Not only so, it is the Son that prays to the 
Father. " Father, the hour is come. Glorify thy Son, 
that thy Son also may glorify thee." And then again, 
cc Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee 
before the world was." Jesus prays, then, as the Christ, 
and as the Son, to the Father, as the only true God. 
Could any words more explicitly deny that Jesus the 
Messiah, and the Son of God, had any participation in 
Deity ? I wish to point your especial attention to the 
attributes of these two persons, and the relations they 
sustain to each other. Jesus prays to the Father, and 
says that it is eternal life to know him, — in what capa- 
city ? As the only true God. Can anything be 
more explicit than this ? The Father is the only true 
God. Now if the Father is the only true God, 
then there must be a Trinity in him, if there is 
a Trinity at all. He cannot be one of three per- 
sons, each one of which is the only true God as 
much as himself. Then, if Jesus Christ be a Per- 
son of the Trinity, why should he be so carefully 
shut out of the Deity ? c; This is life eternal, to know 
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
hast sent ? " To square with the Trinitarian hypothesis, 
it should have been : u This is life eternal, that they 
might know thee, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy 
Spirit, to be the only true God." 

But what is the attribute of Jesus Christ, that makes 






GOD AND CHRIST. 187 

it eternal life to know him ? The Evangelist goes on to 
tell us, u and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." It 
is then his having been sent by the only true God. The 
common theory is, that the Father, the first Person of 
the Trinity, sent the Son, the second Person of the 
Trinity. But this theory is here shown to be a mis- 
take. It is the Father, the only true God, who sent 
Jesus Christ. 

The celebrated Dr. Watts has some very forcible 
remarks on this subject, in his treatise, which he enti- 
tled, " Useful and Important Questions concerning 
Jesus, the Son of God." This most pious divine, 
after writing his Psalms and Hymns, which have done 
more to sustain the doctrine of the Trinity than almost 
anything else, became, in consequence of years of 
learned and candid research, a Unitarian of the strict- 
est sort. We have in his works a record of his inves- 
tigations of the doctrine of the Trinity, and they are 
everywhere impartial, humble, and devout. Concern- 
ing the representation of one Person of the Deity 
sending another, he makes the following judicious ob- 
servations. " The divine nature of Christ, how dis- 
tinct soever it is supposed to be from God the Father, 
yet can never leave the Father's bosom, can never 
divest itself of one joy or felicity that it ever possessed, 
nor lose even the least degree of it ; nor could God 
the Father ever dismiss his Son from his bosom. 
Godhead must have eternal and complete beatitude, 
joy, and glory, and can never be dispossessed of it. 
Godhead can sustain no real sorrow, suffering, or pain. 
Therefore, in the common scheme, all this glorious and 



188 GOD AND CHRIST. 

pathetic description of the love of Christ, in leaving 
the joys and glories of heaven, when he came to dwell 
on earth, has no ideas belonging to it, and it can be 
true in no sense, since it can be attributed neither to 
the divine, nor the human nature of Christ, nor to his 
whole person." 

When did the mission of Jesus begin ? The first we 
read of it, is immediately after his baptism. He w r as 
led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he spent 
forty days in retirement. John, at his baptism, saw 
the Spirit descending upon him like a dove, and re- 
maining on him. After the retirement in the wilder- 
ness, Jesus returned in the poiver of the Spirit into 
Galilee, and immediately began to preach, saying, 
u Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." In 
what did his mission consist ? Let him declare in his 
own words. Immediately after his return to Galilee, 
he came to his own town, Nazareth, and in the syna- 
gogue read and applied to himself the following pas- 
sage. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because 
he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor ; 
he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach 
deliverance to the captives, &c. To day is this Scrip- 
ture fulfilled in your ears." This certainly is a different 
sort of sending from that of the first Person of the 
Trinity sending the second out of heaven. He was 
sent because the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and 
because he was anointed to preach the Gospel to the 
poor. Parallel to this is the declaration of John : 
ct He, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of 
God, for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto 



GOD AND CHRIST. 189 

Aim." This is totally inapplicable to the second Person 
of a Trinity, when considered as sent by the first. The 
second Person of the Trinity could not have the spirit 
of the Lord upon him, nor have the spirit given him 
without measure. The mission of Christ does not run 
so far back as the Trinitarian system supposes, nor does 
it apply to any divine nature that is supposed to belong 
to him. 

Strongly corroborative of this view of things, is the 
ground upon which Christ placed his authority. Had 
he been the second Person of the Trinity, the shortest 
way for him to have demonstrated his authority, would 
have been, to have shown that he was the second Per- 
son of the Trinity, and then his authority would have 
followed of course. God the Son must have just as 
much authority as God the Father. But he rests his 
authority upon the ground of having been sent. If he 
was God the Son, or God in any sense, the very fact 
that he was, would have been commission enough. He 
could have no higher authority. Yet he does not base 
his authority upon his being God, but upon the fact that 
God had sent him. u My doctrine," said he, lc is not 
mine, but his that sent me." " He that will do his 
will, shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, 
or whether I speak of myself." If he spoke of him- 
self, then he confesses his doctrine was not from God. 
What plainer declaration could he have made, that he 
himself was not God ? If he had been God, then 
his doctrine must have been from God, for the very 
reason that he spoke it of himself. It is not his nature 
then, but his commission, that gives him authority, his 



190 



GOD AND CHRIST. 



having received his doctrines from God. " He, whom 
God hath sent, speaketh the words of God," not be- 
cause he is God, but because he is inspired, "for God 
giveth the spirit not by measure unto him." 

But it may be inquired, Do not the words, u sent " 
and "come," when applied to Christ in connexion 
with the words "from God," and " from heaven," 
favor the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least that Jesus 
Christ existed in heaven with God before his birth ? 
I answer, No ; and I will give my reasons. To come 
from God, or from heaven, in the phraseology of the 
New Testament, means to be divinely authorized. 
Jesus says on one occasion: "If God were your 
Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth, and 
came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent 
me." The sending, and coming forth, here spoken of, 
must mean taking upon himself the office of a divine 
teacher. That he might have done of himself unau- 
thorized. But he could not not have come from God 
in the other sense, of himself, without being sent. 
In the same sense Nicodemus says to him : " Rabbi, 
we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for 
no man could do these miracles that thou doest, except 
God were ivilh him." Coming from God, is not 
coming literally from heaven, but having a divine com- 
mission. " There was a man sent from God, w r hose 
name w T as John." If we interpret this literally, we 
shall assert that John preexisted with God in heaven. 
It means that he was sent by God as a prophet. 
"The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of 
men ? " If we interpret this literally, we shall prove 



GOD AND CHRIST. 191 

that the baptism of John was practised in heaven be- 
fore it was instituted on earth. So when Jesus speaks 
of himself as coming from God, or from heaven, we 
are not authorized by the language of the New Testa- 
ment to consider it as meaning any more than his 
being sent on his mission as a teacher, being in com- 
munication with God, and receiving the spirit without 
measure. 

There is another important point, which is all but 
settled by this prayer of Christ with his disciples, — the 
sense in which Jesus applied to himself the title, " Son 
of God." The misinterpretation of this phrase may 
be said to have been the germ of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. The fact of Christ's praying has often been 
brought as an objection to his being God. How could 
God pray to God, or how could God pray at all ? Tt 
is answered by saying, that he prayed in his human na- 
ture. But the advocate of the Trinity gets rid of one 
difficulty only by plunging into another. If he prayed 
in his human nature, then he applied the title, u Son 
of God," to his human nature. For he says to the 
only true God, cc Glorify thy Son," and immediately 
after, cc Glorify thou me," making " Son " and " me " 
synonymous. If that be the case, he is not the Son, 
the second Person of a Trinity ; and " Son of God," 
when applied to him, means no such thing. If we wish 
to know the ground upon which he appropriated this 
title to himself, there is no better authority than his 
own. On a certain occasion he was accused of blas- 
phemy, for applying this appellation to himself in the 
very sense claimed for it by the Trinitarian system, 



192 GOD AND CHRIST. 

" because he, being a man, made himself God." And 
how did he defend himself? On the ground that they 
were right in their interpretation, that he was God,. and 
therefore had a right to the name of God, as integrity 
and fair dealing would have compelled him to do if 
he were God in fact ? By no means. He makes no 
such claim, but he puts it on the ground of his divine 
commission, that God had sanctified him, and sent him 
into the world. What being sent by God into the 
world means, we have already seen. God, or the 
Father, certainly never sanctified the second Person 
of the Trinity and sent him into the world. "If he 
called them Gods, to whom the word of God came, 
and the Scripture cannot be gainsaid, say ye of him, 
whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the 
world ; Thou blasphemest, because 1 said, I am the 
Son of God ?" 

I have, in this lecture, brought to your notice four 
most explicit texts, which to my mind decisively prove 
the truth of the Unitarian faith. I have shown you 
from them what God and Christ are, and what relations 
they sustain to each other. I have shown you that the 
phrases, " mediator," " Lord," " sent of God," and 
" Son of God," have nothing to do with the nature 
of Christ, but are applied to him only in his official 
character. All ground of support, therefore, which they 
seem to give to the doctrine of the Trinity, is taken 
away. We see that there is but one God in any sense ; 
that the term Father, when applied to God, is co- 
extensive with the word God, and all idea of three 
persons totally vanishes and disappears. 






GOD AND CHRIST. 193 

There are two more considerations, which may have 
more weight with some minds than anything I have 
yet brought forward, one of which I have already men- 
tioned ; the comparison of the different forms of salu- 
tation, which occur in different Epistles. In some of 
them we have, " Grace, mercy, and peace from God 
our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." In others, 
"Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ." 

This, when fully considered, will be found to amount 
to an entire refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Consider what these two forms of expression involve. 
God the Father, and God our Father, are used as 
synonymous terms, perfectly equivalent to each other. 
They are both applied to a Being who is entirely dis- 
tinct and separate from Christ, for the words are 
" God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," and 
" God oar Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." God 
our Father, is not a Person of a Trinity. He is the 
whole Deity, without distinction of persons. He is 
the Person to whom we pray when we say, u Our 
Father, which art in heaven." From God our Father 
and any other person, must mean from God and from 
a person who is not God, not from the first and second 
Persons of a Trinity. 

But the Apostle uses God the Father as precisely 
synonymous with God our Father. If God our Father, 
and God the Father, are precisely equivalent to each 
other, then God the Father is the whole Deity, and is 
not the first Person of a Trinity. And if Jesus 
Christ sustains the same relation to the Father, that 
17 



194 GOD AND CHRIST. 

he does to our Father, he cannot be a Person of 
a Trinity, and he cannot be God at all. The par- 
allelism of these passages, when analyzed, contains 
in itself an entire negative both of the plurality of 
the Divine nature and the Deity of Christ. Nay, 
Christ has told us himself, in the most explicit terms, 
that his Father is not a Person of a Trinity, but the 
whole Deity, in his message to his disciples, after his 
resurrection : u Go to my brethren, and say unto them, 
Behold, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to 
my God and your God." This simple sentence con- 
tains in itself a refutation of the whole Trinitarian hy- 
pothesis. 

The other consideration, to which I refer, was the 
representation of Christ as sitting on the right hand of 
God. This idea is purely Oriental, and is derived 
from the custom of placing a person peculiarly honored 
or exalted, in Eastern courts, at the right hand of the 
sovereign. A king, in an Eastern court, placed his son, 
or his chief minister, on his right hand, on occasions 
of state, to show that he was next him in power. 
So, according to the Theocratic and Messianic ideas of 
the Jews, the Messiah was to be next to Jehovah in 
power. Jehovah was the supreme King of Israel. 
The earthly kings, who reigned over that nation, were 
considered to reign with, or under him, to be exalted 
to his throne. So the Messiah was to be the suc- 
cessor of these kings, and greater than they all. He 
was to reign over all the earth, as they reigned over 
Judea. 

Afterward, when the spiritual nature of Christ's 



GOD AND CHRIST. 195 

kingdom was revealed, the Apostles kept up the old 
language, and represented Christ as exalted to God's 
right hand at his resurrection, and exercising a spiritual 
dominion over his church. So much for the reason of 
this use of language. I shall now consider what is 
involved in this language itself, so far as the general 
subject of these lectures is concerned. 

I first remark, that this exaltation, in the language of 
Scripture, does not make Christ a participant of Deity, 
but shuts him out of it. "If then ye be risen with 
Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ 
sitteth at the right of God." He cannot be God, even 
in the highest state of exaltation, and sit on the right 
hand of God. This would be a contradiction in terms. 
Neither can one equal Person of a Trinity sit on the 
right hand of God, for he must be comprehended in 
that very God at whose right hand he sits. 

Neither did sitting on the right hand of God belong 
to Christ originally, so that he descended from it, and 
was restored to it. Neither was he there previously to 
his resurrection. He was placed there by the power 
of God subsequently to the resurrection. For the 
Apostle says : " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom, 
and revelation in the knowledge of h\m, the eyes of 
your understanding being opened, that ye may know 
what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of 
the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the 
exceeding greatness of his power to us ward, who be- 
lieve according to the working of his mighty power, 
which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from 



196 GOD AND CHRIST. 

the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the 
heavenly places." His exaltation to the right hand of 
God, is spoken of by the writer of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews as being subsequent to his crucifixion. 
<c When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on 
the right hand of the Majesty on high." That rank did 
not belong to him originally, he was exalted to it, for 
another Apostle says, cc By the resurrection of Christ, 
who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of 
God ; angels, and authorities, and powers being made 
subject unto /am." 

It is in his glorified human nature that he sits at 
the right hand of God. The martyr Stephen " saw 
heaven opened, and the glory of God, and Jesus stand- 
ing on the right hand of God." In another place it is 
said, that it is the same person who died, who is on the 
right hand of God. It was only the human nature of 
Christ that could die. " Who is he that condemneth ? 
Is it Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, 
who is ever at the right hand of God, who also maketh 
intercession for us." 

This exaltation was bestowed on him in consequence 
of his sufferings, and his submitting to the bitter and dis- 
graceful death of crucifixion ; for Paul says, u Looking 
unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who 
for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, 
despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand 
of the throne of God." 

And this exaltation, after all, has nothing to do with 
the general government of the universe, and has rela- 
tion only to the church, for it is said in a passage, a 



GOD AND CHRIST. 197 

part of which is cited above, that "God raised him 
from the dead, and set him at his own right hand, in the 
heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, 
and might, and dominion, and every name that is 
named, not only in this world, but in that which is to 
come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
him to be head over all things to the churchy which is 
his body." 

So strictly true are the words with which I com- 
menced this discourse ; " There is one God, and 
one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ 
Jesus." 



17* 



LECTURE IX. 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
JOHN V. 23. 

THAT ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON, EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FA- 
THER. HE THAT HONORETH NOT THE SON, HONORETH NOT THE FATHER 
WHICH SENT HIM. 

The whole Trinitarian system depends upon a sup- 
position — which is, that Christ had two natures, one 
human and the other divine. I say it is a supposition, 
because there is not a text in the New Testament in 
which this doctrine is asserted. If it were positively 
ascertained that he had but one nature, the whole doc- 
trine of the Trinity, and all the doctrines^connected with 
it, would fall to the ground. It is my purpose in this 
lecture to examine this doctrine, — what it is, and what 
support it finds in the Scriptures. 

The doctrine of the two natures is, that Christ was a 
complex being, the constituent elements of which were, 
a human body and a human soul, and the second Per- 
son of the Trinity, the Son, equal in all respects to the 
Father, and possessing all divine attributes. While 
sustaining this theory, the Trinitarian is furnished with 
an answer to every objection which can be brought 
against his hypothesis. For the conditions of this union 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 199 

between the divine and human natures are such, that it 
leaves Christ the liberty of speaking and acting in either 
of these natures as he chooses. He may say things in 
his human nature, which are not true of his divine na- 
ture, so that the strongest disclaimer he can make of 
possessing divine attributes, or being God, is no proof 
that he was not God, but only a proof that he had a 
human nature, and sometimes spoke in that human na- 
ture, to the exclusion of the divine. It is evident, that, 
according to this supposition, the language of Christ in 
the New Testament is altogether anomalous. The pro- 
nouns "I" and "me," when used by Christ, mean 
something entirely different from the same words when 
used by other persons. Sometimes they include and 
represent a human being, and sometimes an Infinite per- 
son, the second Person of the Trinity. If we ask on 
what principle we are to discriminate between those 
passages in which he speaks as God, and those in which 
he means to be understood in his human nature, no cri- 
terion is given us, but he is made to speak in one or 
the other, just as the exigencies of the doctrine of the 
Trinity require. Christ himself never gave us any such 
principle of discrimination, nor did he ever give us a 
hint of his double nature. The two natures of Christ 
is not not a doctrine of Christ, or of the Scriptures, but 
it is an hypothesis, which has been invented to explain 
certain passages of the Scriptures, that were thought 
plainly to imply it. I make no reflections on those 
who started this hypothesis. They, I believe, were 
honest in it. They thought it the easiest way of ac- 
counting for certain language which they found in the 



200 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

New Testament. The proofs of Christ's human nature 
they thought to be conclusive and overwhelming, but 
then there were certain things attributed to him, certain 
acts represented to be done by him, which they could 
not ascribe to humanity. Therefore they resorted to 
the supposition of another and higher nature making a 
part of him, which from its attributes they thought to be 
God, or at least a Person of a Trinity. 

The most natural way, in which this discussion can 
be conducted, will be this : First, to examine the evi- 
dence of the humanity of Christ, and consider those 
passages, which assert, or imply, that he was a man ; 
and in the second, those passages which are thought to 
prove that he had another nature. The proofs of 
Christ's humanity are too many and too plain to be re- 
sisted. He had a human body and a human soul. He 
was born, increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor 
with God and man. His conception has nothing to do 
with this question, for that affects only the body, how 
that began to exist. The soul must come from God, 
whether the body into which it is put begins to exist by 
God's immediate power, or by the ordinary agency he 
employs. He suffered pain, and weariness, and thirst, 
and finally died upon the cross. His soul was subject 
to human emotions. He felt grief at the grave of Laz- 
arus, indignation at the hypocrisy of his countrymen, 
distress at the treason of Judas Iscariot, horror at the 
approach of death, and agony in the struggles of expiring 
nature, and commended his soul to God when it was 
about to leave his body. He ate and drank with his 
disciples, after his resurrection, and recognized with 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 201 

them the same common relation to God at his ascension. 
44 Behold, I ascend to my Father and your Father, to 
my God and your God." 

He called himself a man. 44 Ye seek to kill me, a 
man that hath told you the truth." He calls his disci- 
ples his brethren. 44 Go tell my brethren," says he, 
after his resurrection, 44 Behold, I ascend to my Fa- 
ther." 44 Whosoever will do the will of my Father 
which is in heaven, the same is my mother, and sister, 
and brother." 

The Apostles call him a man, and reason from his 
humanity. Peter, in his first sermon to the Jews af- 
ter the ascension of Christ, says, 44 Ye men of Israel, 
hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved 
of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, 
which God did % him in the midst of you." Paul says, 
44 As by man came death, so by man came the resur- 
rection of the dead." In another place, 44 For if 
through the offence of one, many be dead, much more 
the grace of God and the gift of grace, which is by one 
man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." He 
told the Athenians, that 44 God would judge the world 
in righteousness, by that man, whom he had ordained, 
whereof he had given assurance unto all men, in that he 
had raised him from the dead." 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has not 
only asserted that Christ was a man, but gives the reason 
why it was necessary that he should be a man. 44 We 
see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, 
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, 
that he, by the grace of God, should taste of death for 



202 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

every man." It was necessary that he should be a man, 
that he might die. It may be objected that the phrase, 
was made a little lower than the angels, intimates that 
he was originally above them, but the same would be 
proved of man in general, for the very same word is 
applied to him. " Thou hast made him a little lower 
than the angels." Not only was it necessary for him to 
be a man, in order to die for the benefit of mankind, but 
that he might rise again, and become their leader into 
immortality. " For it became him," that is, God, " for 
whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in 
bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their 
salvation perfect through sufferings," perfect as a leader, 
or a perfect leader, by death. Had he not been a man, 
his resurrection would have been no proof of ours. 
" For both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sancti- 
fied, are all of one," that is, one nature, u so that he is 
not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare 
thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church 
I will sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my 
trust in him. And again, Behold, I, and the children 
which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself took 
part of the same, that, through death, he might destroy 
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and 
deliver them who through fear of death were all their 
lives subject to bondage." It might here be supposed, 
that the phrase, " took part of the same," is intended to 
mean that he took flesh, by becoming incarnate, but 
the same would be proved of the children, with whom 
he is associated; for it is said of them that they partook 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 203 

of flesh and blood. The next phrase is so translated 
as to produce on many a very erroneous impression. 
cc For he took not on him the nature of angels." The 
words, '• the nature of," are printed, as you may see, in 
Italics, in our Bibles, signifying that they are not in the 
original. The literal meaning of this passage is, " He 
did not assist angels, but the seed of Abraham." 
14 Wherefore in all things it became him to be made 
like his brethren, that he might be a faithful and merci- 
ful high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make re- 
conciliation for the sins of the people ; for in that he 
himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to suc- 
cor them that are tempted." His humanity did not 
cease with the present life. For the Apostle says of 
him, u Who shall change our vile body, that it may be 
made like his glorious body." John says, u When he 
shall appear, ice shall be like him, for we shall see him 
as he is." Such are the abundant and overwhelming evi- 
dences of the humanity of Christ. Indeed, no persons 
are more strenuous in their maintenance of the perfect 
humanity of Christ, than the most zealous Trinitarians. 
Now there is another class of texts, which the Trini- 
tarian finds it impossible to reconcile with the humanity 
of Christ, and therefore concludes that there must have 
been another and higher nature connected with his hu- 
man nature. He therefore makes that supposition, in 
the face of all the intrinsic difficulties that attend it. I 
say difficulties ; but not a tenth part of those difficulties 
are realized by those who use the common phraseology 
of the divine nature of Christ. Nature, in this case, is 
a very convenient, because a very indefinite, term. We 



204 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

are told that Christ did or spoke this in his divine na- 
ture, and that in his human nature. What is a nature? 
It is said that Christ's having a human and a divine na- 
ture, presents no greater difficulties than man's having a 
corporeal and a spiritual, a mortal and an immortal na- 
ture. But this, as it seems to me, is not so. The two 
parts of man, his material and spiritual, his mortal and 
immortal parts, are so totally dissimilar to each other, 
that they do not at all interfere. The mental and moral 
faculties all reside in the mind, the physical powers all are 
in the body. The mind, therefore, may use the instru- 
mentality of the body, and the body submit to the guid- 
ance and control of the mind. But a divine nature adds 
to both a third entity, which in its nature is precisely 
similar to the mind, and therefore calculated to interfere 
with it, to take its place, to suspend its action, to ab- 
sorb, or overwhelm it. There must be two conscious- 
nesses, two processes of mental operations, two memo- 
ries, two wills. And when one of these minds is God, 
and the other man, such an amalgamation seems to be 
utterly impossible. A person, to have a unity, must 
have a unity of consciousness. A human mind, by unity 
of consciousness w 7 ith a divine mind, must instantly be- 
come omniscient. It must lose the very property 
which made it human, which is being finite and limited; 
if the human and divine wills coalesce, the human will 
becomes omnipotent. If this coalition is perpetual, then 
the person formed by it, must have all the properties of 
each, which are consistent with each other, and all that 
he says must be true of both. If this coalition took 
place to prepare a proper person for the office of the 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 205 

Messiah, then all that he did and said in that office must 
be true of both those natures. The distinction, then, 
that he did and said this as man, and that as God, can- 
not be allowed. If Christ's superhuman knowledge 
arose from the junction of the human and divine natures, 
and not from inspiration, then, whenever this junction 
was dissolved, and according to the Trinitarian hypo- 
thesis it must often have been, we have no guaranty 
for the infallibility of what he said as man. And his 
sayings in the Gospels, are partly those of God, which 
are infallibly true, and partly those of a man, for which 
we have only human and uninspired authority. 

But the usual course of argument is to prove that there 
are certain attributes, names and actions, given to Christ, 
which cannot belong to humanity under any circum- 
stances, even when aided by divine power. In order 
to make this discussion as thorough and complete as 
possible, I shall consider some of these attributes, 
names, and actions. 

I have already, in a former lecture, gone over those 
passages in which he is supposed to be called God. It 
is thought that a divine nature in Christ is intended by 
the phrases, u Son," and c; Son of God," which are ap- 
plied to him. Indeed, " Son " is the name his divine 
nature is said to bear in the Trinity, and, by a strange 
license, the " Son of God " is changed into " God the 
Son," overlooking the infinite distance there is between 
the meanings of these two phrases. I have already 
given you Christ's own explanation of this term. He 
says that he appropriated it to himself, not because of 
his nature, but because of his mission, because u God 
18 



206 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

had sanctified him and sent him into the world." Jesus 
prays as u the Son of God," and he prays of course in 
his human nature, though in his official character, for no 
other nature could pray. Paul says that Jesus " was 
declared to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from 
the dead." Christ's resurrection from the dead proved 
him to be a man, and not God. " The Son of God," 
in the other sense, could not rise from the dead. Paul 
says, " If we, being enemies, were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son." Son must here, of course, 
mean his human nature, for " the Son of God," in the 
other sense, could not die. In the same sense, he says, 
in another place, u God spared not his own Son, but 
freely gave him up for us all," to death, of course. The 
"Son of God," in the other sense, could not be deliv- 
ered up to death. " Whom he foreknew, them also he 
foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, 
that he might be the first-born among many brethren." 
The divine nature of Christ cannot be the first-born 
among many brethren. John says, u Whosoever shal' 
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in 
him and he in God." " Who is he that overcometh 
the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
God ? " Jesus is the name of a man. The u Son of 
God" must mean, therefore, an office, and not a 
nature. 

This view of things is corroborated by what Paul says 
in his Epistle to the Galatians. u When the fulness of 
the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of 
a ivoman ;" that is, sent the Messiah, a man. The 
" sending," of course, is after his birth, for he does not 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 207 

say, " sent forth the Son to be made of a woman," but 
made of a woman, toho had been born of a woman. He 
asserts, therefore, that the Son of God was a man. 
The " sending " cannot go back farther than his birth, 
for another reason. It is God, the whole Deity, that 
sent forth his Son, not the Father, the first Person of a 
Trinity. God, the whole Deity, can have no Son who 
is the second Person in the Deity. 

I trust it is necessary to make no further quotations in 
order to show that the terms " Son," and " Son of 
God," are applied to Christ's human nature, and there- 
fore prove nothing as to any other. 

It may be said that the phrases, " sent into the 
world," "come into the world," &c, imply a divine 
nature in Christ. His human soul could not have come, 
or have been sent into this world, because it had no ex- 
istence before it came into this world. But the same 
reasoning would prove that we all preexisted, for 
it is said of us, that u we brought nothing into this 
world, and can carry nothing out." Jesus himself has 
made "being born," and "coming into the world," 
synonymous, when applied to himself. " To this end 
was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, 
that I should bear witness to the truth." There is no 
reference here to a preexistent state, only a statement 
of the purposes of his earthly existence. Christ ad- 
dresses God and says, " Thou lovedst me before the 
foundation of the world." He must, it is said, have 
existed then. But it would follow that his human soul 
must have preexisted, for only his human soul could 
pray or be loved. Christians are said to have been 



208 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

" chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." 
They must have preexisted too. In another place, 
u According to his purpose and grace which was given 
us in Christ Jesus, before the world began." If it was 
literally given to us before the world began, we must 
have been there to receive it. If it was given to us in 
the purposes of God, it may likewise have been given us 
through Christ Jesus, in the purposes of God, and im- 
ply neither our preexistence nor his. Great light is 
thrown on this subject by a passage in the First Epistle 
of Peter ; when speaking of Christ, he says : " Who 
was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 
but appeared in these last times for you." To have 
been foreordained before the foundation of the world, 
is very different from having existed then. 

There are two passages, in which Christ said of him- 
self, that he came down from heaven. This, to a hasty 
reader, might seem to assert that Jesus existed before 
he came into this world. But a closer examination will 
show him, that in the first case, in his conversation with 
Nicodemus, the same sentence that would oblige us to 
admit that he came down from heaven, if literally inter- 
preted, would teach that he first ascended into heaven, 
and after he had descended, he was still in heaven. 
" And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that 
came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is 
in heaven." To be in heaven then, in the sense here 
intended, has no reference to place, to ascending or de- 
scending, but only to have knowledge derived from 
God. 

The second case is that in which he speaks of himself 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 209 

as " the bread of life," identifying himself with his doc- 
trines. It was after the miracles of the loaves and 
fishes. Some of his hearers wished him to repeat the 
miracle, from the low motive of obtaining food. He 
attempts to impress upon their minds the fact, that it is 
his doctrines that they ought to desire. They told him 
that Moses gave their fathers u bread from heaven." 
He answers, " My Father is now giving you the true 
bread from heaven. For the bread of God, is he that 
cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world;" 
by his doctrines, of course. t; I am the bread of life; 
he that cometh to me, shall never hunger, and he that 
believeth on me, shall never thirst. All that the Father 
giveth me shall come unto me, and him that cometh un- 
to me will I in no wise cast out." Keeping up the fig- 
ure under which he had before spoken, he adds : u For 
I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but 
the will of him that hath sent me." That he does not 
mean a literal coming down from heaven, appears from 
what he adds immediately after. " I am the living 
bread, that came down from heaven. If any man eat 
of this bread, he shall live forever. And the bread that 
I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of 
the world." Now if this proves anything to have come 
down from heaven, literally, it will prove that Chrisfs 
flesh came down from heaven, a thing which cannot be 
supposed for a moment. 

With what latitude such language is used in the New 

Testament, may be seen in a discourse of John the 

Baptist. Speaking of Christ, he says, in comparison of 

himself: "He that cometh from above, is above all; 

18* 



210 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

he that is of the earth, is earthy, and speaketh of the 
earth." If we make this to mean, that Jesus came lit- 
erally from heaven, it must likewise mean that John 
came from the earth, that neither his soul nor his mis- 
sion came from God. But such is not the meaning he 
wishes to convey, for it is said, " there was a man sent 
from God, whose name was John," but only to express 
Christ's superiority to himself as a divine teacher. So 
Christ says to the Jews, " Ye are from beneath, I am 
from above. Ye are of this world, I am not of this 
toorld." The same meaning is conveyed in the two 
sentences. In the same discourse, he tells the Jews 
that " they are of their Father the devil." 

I have now said enough, I hope, to show you the 
bearing which the phrases "come," and "sent into the 
world," "come down from heaven," &c, have upon 
the doctrine of two natures in Christ ; that they prove 
nothing. I have already shown that nothing can be in- 
ferred from the terms Mediator, and Lord. I shall now 
proceed to what he has done, what he is, and what he is 
to do, as proving two natures in him. 

It is said that it was necessary that Christ should 
have a divine nature, in order to effect the atonement. 
The law was broken, its honor was violated. It could 
not be restored to the respect of the universe, unless its 
penalties were undergone by an infinite substitute. Sin 
is an infinite evil, it is committed against an infinite Be- 
ing, and therefore cannot be atoned for except by an 
infinite Person. The second Person of the Trinity un- 
dertook this office, descended to the earth, became in- 
carnate, suffered the penalty of man's transgression, and 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 211 

returned to heaven, having thus accomplished the deliv- 
erance of the human race. It is unaccountable how 
the world goes on, generation after generation, using 
words without ideas. God can neither ascend nor de- 
scend. Person is a mere abstraction, in any sense, 
which will not involve three Gods. No Trinitarian, in 
fact, holds to more than one divine essence. That di- 
vine essence cannot make satisfaction to itself, and re- 
ceive it, at the same time. The very hypothesis, then, 
becomes impossible. Nor can God suffer the penalty 
of sin, for God cannot suffer at all. If any atonement 
for sin is necessary, that alone is necessary which God 
appoints and chooses to receive. Let us then go to the 
Scriptures, and see how they represent the matter. 
The New Testament declares, that it was necessary 
that Christ should be a man, that he might do this very 
thing. " Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be 
made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make 
reconciliation for the sins of the people." C€ But we see 
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for 
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, 
that by the grace of God he might taste of death for 
every man." He made the atonement then, whatever 
it was, in his human nature, for he could die in no other. 
No sacrifice can take away sin, unless man repents, and 
God chooses to forgive him. And the very purpose 
for which sacrifices were instituted, was, to symbolize 
this very thing, mercy on the part of God, and peni- 
tence on the part of man. Inasmuch as Christ was the 
ambassador of God's mercy, and called men to repent- 



212 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

ance, and died in attestation of his mission, his death 
was analogous to a sacrifice ; but neither his death nor 
sacrifices procured God's mercy, but only symbolized it, 
assured it to mankind. There is no occasion then, that 
the symbol should be infinite, in order to answer the 
purpose of a symbol. It is sufficient if it brings men to 
repentance and rescues them from sin. 

Agreeably to this view of things, Christ is mentioned 
as making the atonement in such terms as to shut the 
divine Being entirely out of the transaction. " There 
is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
the man Christ J esus , who gave himself a ransom for 
all" " Grace to you, and peace from God the Fa- 
ther, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for 
our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil 
world, according to the will of God our Father." So 
in the final consummation of all things, Christ is praised 
in such a way as to exclude all Deity from the act of suf- 
fering to redeem men from sin. " Unto him that hath 
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 
and made us kings and priests unto his God and Father, 
to him be glory and dominion, forever and ever." So 
far then from the work of atonement proving a double 
nature in Christ, it all looks the other way, and is of 
such a nature, that a being, who is God, could have no 
part in it. 

Next we are told, that Christ must have a nature above 
his human nature, or he could not raise the dead. He 
is represented as raising the dead, therefore he has a di- 
vine nature. Christ says of himself, " And this is the 
Father's will, which hath sent me, that of all which he 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 213 

hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it 
up at the last day. And this is the will of the Father ', 
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on 
him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up 
at the last day." " Marvel not at this, for the hour is 
coming, in the which all that are in the grave shall hear 
his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good 
to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to 
the resurrection of damnation." I admit, that if 
Christ were represented as doing this by his own un- 
derived poicer, it would be conclusive to prove what is 
claimed for it, that he had more than a human nature. 
But what is the fact? Did he raise Lazarus by his own 
power? No. He disclaimed it. He says, u Father, 
I thank thee that thou hast heard me." " As the Fa- 
ther hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
have life in himself." It will not be by his own power 
that he will raise the dead, for the Apostle says, "Know- 
ing that he which raised up Jesus shall raise up us also 
by Jesus." Now if this be the case, that he is only the 
instrument, there is no possibility of determining his na- 
ture, from what he does, to be this or that; and whatever 
inferences can be drawn from the fact, that God will 
raise the deadfo/ him, are against his divine nature rather 
than in favor of it. The omnipotence of God can clothe 
any agent that he pleases to select with sufficient power 
to do anything that he chooses. The Apostles went 
forth commissioned to raise the dead ; but any one who 
should infer from this, that they had any other nature 
than human, would be greatly deceived. 

But it is urged over and over, as unanswerable, that 



214 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

Christ must be God, or at least have a nature more than 
human, because he is to judge the world. It is said, 
that such an office must require omniscience, nothing 
short of a knowledge of all the transactions of the past. 
That, however, is a human speculation. It is of little 
consequence how we may speculate. The shortest 
way is to appeal to facts. Those we shall find to be 
plain, on an appeal to the Bible. " I charge thee be- 
ford God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge 
the quick and the dead at his appearance and his 
kingdom." u Why dost thou judge thy brother, and 
why dost thou set at naught thy brother, for we must all 
stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." " For we 
must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that 
every man may receive the things done in his body, ac- 
cording to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
whether it be evil." u When the Son of man shall 
come in his glory, with all the holy angels with him, 
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before 
him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate 
them, the one from the other, as the shepherd divideth 
the sheep from the goats." 

Now, whatever this judgment may be, Christ will act 
in it only in an instrumental capacity, for the same 
Scriptures say ; " In the day when God shall judge 
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." cc The Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
the Son." u The hour is coming, in the which all that 
are in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth, 
they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and 
they that have done evil to the resurrection of damna- 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 215 

tion. I can of mine own self do nothing ; as I hear I 
judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine 
own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent 
me." That his judgment is merely ministerial, appears 
from the very language of the description of the final 
judgment. " Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the 
world." Not only is the judgment to be instrumental, 
but to be exercised by a man. Paul at Athens declares, 
" God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge 
the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath 
ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men 
in that he hath raised him from the dead." Peter 
makes, in substance, the same declaration in his speech 
to Cornelius and his companions. The person, who 
when here on earth, owed his power of working mira- 
cles to his " being anointed with the Holy Ghost. " and 
to C4 God's being with him," must owe his power of 
judging the world to the same assistance. u How God 
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and 
with power, who went about doing good, and heal- 
ing all that were oppressed with the devil, for God was 
with him ; whom they slew and hanged on a tree ; him 
hath God raised up and showed him openly. And he 
hath commanded us to preach to the people, and to tes- 
tify that it is he that was ordained of God to be the 
judge of the quick and the dead." 

I trust that these quotations are sufficient to show, 
that in whatever sense Christ is to judge the world, his 
agency is to be ministerial only; through him God is to 
judge the world, and is to judge the world by the man 
Christ Jesus. 



216 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

Finally, in the state of exaltation to which Christ was 
advanced, we find no traces of his possessing two na- 
tures. Soon after his ascension, he was seen in vision 
by the martyr Stephen, but not as a Person of the Trin- 
ity, not as God in any sense, nor as having more than 
one nature. u He saw heaven opened, he saw the glory 
of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." 
He was seen by Paul on his way to Damascus. In 
answer to Paul's question, asking who he was, he says, 
"I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest." The exalta- 
tion of Christ is generally connected with his crucifixion. 
Only one nature of Christ was capable of being crucified. 
" Who is he that condemneth? Is it Christ that died, 
yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right 
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." In 
another place, " which he wrought in Christ, when he 
raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right 
hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality 
and power, and every name that is named, not only in 
this world, but in that which is to come." In another 
place it is said, that it was in consequence of his suffer- 
ing death, that he is crowned with glory and honor. In 
another place it is said to be in consequence of his sub- 
mission to die on the cross, that " God has highly ex- 
alted him, and given him a name that is above every 
name." Such passages as these are sufficient to show 
us, that the exaltation of Christ is no objection to the 
simplicity of his nature ; nor ought it to be, since God is 
omnipotent, and can bestow any measure of power, 
knowledge, and dignity, on any being he pleases, short of 
communicating his own incommunicable attributes. 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 217 

From the arguments we have gone over, you perceive 
there is no sufficient ground in the Scriptures for sup- 
posing that Christ had two natures united in his person. 
We see no traces of more than one intelligence, one 
mind and will. What his nature was, I leave every one 
to gather for himself. Whatever honor we pay him, we 
must remember that it is not an honor due his nature, 
but only his commission ; and all the honor we pay him 
must redound to God, for we read that all men must 
honor the Son as they honor the Father, because he is 
the Father's representative. u He that honoreth not 
the Son, honoreth not the Father lohich sent him." 

There is a class of texts, which it may be well to 
consider here, which have led some to imagine, that we 
are to honor the Son as we honor the Father, that we 
are to honor Christ as we honor God, because God has 
committed to him the government and control of the 
physical universe ; that it is he, and not God, who now 
sustains and guides all things. I have myself heard a 
preacher, whose opinions are implicitly received by a 
numerous sect in this country, declare that when Christ 
ascended, there was a revolution in heaven ; that God 
gave up the control of the whole creation, visible and 
invisible, to Christ ; and it seemed to be inferred, that 
he himself retired and became quiescent. 

Such a government of the universe as this, would 
seem to be altogether incommensurate with human na- 
ture, in any state of exaltation. I propose to consider 
here those texts upon which such an opinion is founded. 
The strongest passage, which is thought to support this 
opinion, is found in the words of Christ when he com- 
19 



218 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

missioned bis disciples to go and teach all nations. This 
was after his resurrection. " And Jesus came and 
spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in 
heaven and in earth." These words have, it must be 
confessed, the appearance of asserting that the whole 
control of the physical universe is committed to Christ. 
But this appearance entirely vanishes when we examine 
the original. The word there used is authority, not 
power. u All authority is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth." More light is thrown upon this passage, 
when we consider that the phrase, u in heaven and in 
earth," was then, just as it is now, a phrase for univer- 
sality ; and means nothing more or less in this case than 
full authority for the purpose in hand, that of commis- 
sioning his disciples. It is equivalent, as I conceive, to 
what he said on another occasion, after his resurrection, 
as reported by John : u As my Father hath sent me, 
so send I you ;" that is, with full authority. 

Another text, which is thought to teach Christ's gov- 
ernment of the physical universe, is found in the intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Hebrews. " Who, being 
the brightness of his (God's) glory, and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word 
of his power." But as it happens, the word here ren- 
dered upholding, has no such meaning, but means con- 
trolling, and it is said of Christ before his exaltation, 
when he was here on earth, and of course refers, not to 
his government of the universe, but to his miraculous 
powers, not of continuing the course of nature, but of 
interrupting it ; and that he never professed to do by 
his own power, but by a power given him by God for 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 219 

the occasion, as he expressly declared at the grave of 
Lazarus : ;; I thank thee that thou hast heard me." 
" All things," then, must be received, as it must in all 
similar cases, not as an absolute universal, but with those 
limitations which belong to the subject. Christians are 
said " to have an unction from the Holy One, and to 
know all things ;" not to be absolutely omniscient, but 
to know all things that as Christians they ought to know. 
So Christ had an extensive control of physical nature, as 
extensive as was necessary for the purpose of substan- 
tiating his mission. 

There is another sentence in Matthew, which, taken 
without limitation, would seem to assert that God had 
delivered up the universe to Christ. " All things are 
delivered unto me of my Father." But the connection 
teaches us with what restrictions this term of universal- 
ity is to be received in this case. In the first place, it 
must be restricted to knowledge ; in the second place, 
to religious knowledge, that knowledge which is com- 
municated by revelation ; and, in the third place, to that 
knowledge which is contained in Christianity, which 
respects God and Christ, and Christ's relations to God 
and to mankind. It occurs immediately after Christ's 
prayer, in which he thanks God for having revealed to 
the simple and the ignorant things which had been con- 
cealed from the wise. " I thank thee, O Father, Lord 
of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things 
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father ; 
and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither 



220 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to 
whom the Son will reveal him" All things then, here, 
does not refer to the material world at all, but is first to 
be restrained to subjects of knowledge, in the second 
place, to subjects of revelation, and in the third place, 
to those things which relate to God and Christ, and their 
relations to each other and to mankind. 

Another instance of this restricted universality, is 
found in his prayer with his disciples. u As thou hast 
given him power over all flesh" Here, too, the super- 
ficial reader would suppose that Jesus meant to say that 
God had given him the physical government of the hu- 
man race. But here, likewise, the word is not power, 
but authority. Authority to do what? A commission 
to teach and to save all mankind who are willing to be 
saved. u That he should give eternal life to as many 
as thou hast given him." And how was he to give them 
eternal life? By teaching them. u And this is life 
eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' 7 By commu- 
nicating this knowledge, he was to bestow eternal life on 
all flesh, that is, all who would receive it. This ex- 
planation gives peculiar beauty to this prayer of Christ 
with his disciples the night before his crucifixion. 
cc Father, the hour is come," not the hour of his suffer- 
ing, but of his triumph, of his glorification. He forgets 
his own approaching suffering, and glances beyond to 
the glory that was to succeed, the spread and success of 
his religion. u Glorify thy Son." Carry out thy great 
purpose of sanctifying and saving the world through me. 
" As thou hast given him authority over all flesh." As 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 221 

thou hast made my commission coextensive with man- 
kind, so let it be effectual to confer eternal blessedness 
on all who will receive it. There lay under this the 
thought of the extension of his kingdom to the Gentiles. 
This was to make a part of his glorification, as just be- 
fore this he had said, when certain Greeks wished to be 
introduced to him, " The hour is come that the Son of 
man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you. 
except a corn of wheat fall into the earth and die, it 
abideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." 
By death, I shall cease to belong to the Jews, and be- 
come the common property of all mankind. 

The language here furnishes a key to what was said 
of him on another occasion. Many times during his 
ministry, but especially during his last journey to Jeru- 
salem, his disciples disputed which should be the great- 
est. To teach them humility, and what true greatness 
was to be in his kingdom, he first set a little child in the 
midst of them, and made him symbolic of the greatness 
of a Christian. He then, to teach the lesson of humility 
more effectually, took the place of a servant, and washed 
his disciples' feet. John, in relating this transaction, 
throws in the circumstances, which heightened his con- 
descension, that notwithstanding the consciousness he 
felt of being so near the time of his glorification, and of 
his reception into heaven, and his knowledge of the fact 
that God had made him superior to all mankind, " had 
given all things into his hand," or, as it is elsewhere 
expressed, given him authority o er all flesh, to be their 
teacher and guide to heaven, still he assumed a menial 
office. " Now, before the feast of the Passover, when 
19* 



222 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should de- 
part out of the world unto the Father, Jesus knowing 
that the Father had given all things into his hands, and 
that he was come from God, and went to God, he 
riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and took 
a towel and girded himself. After that, he poured water 
into a basin, and began to wash his disciples' feet." 

Such, then, was the power given to Christ, not over 
the material universe, but over man, and not over man 
in any other way than as their teacher and spiritual guide. 
The honor, then, that we owe him, is not worship as our 
God, the Former of our bodies, and the Father of our 
spirits, but as the Sent of God, the Revealer of his 
will, and the Promulgator of his law, the Representative 
of his authority; and the honor we pay him is ultimately 
given " to the Father who sent him." 

There is an expression in the fifteenth chapter of 
Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, which, to some 
minds, as they read it, or hear it read, may have the 
appearance of teaching the Deity of Christ, the expla- 
nation of which may properly belong to this lecture. 
" And so it is written, The first man Adam was made 
a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening 
spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, 
but that which is natural, and afterward that which is 
spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the 
second man is the Lord from heaven." Is not here a 
positive declaration, it is asked, that Jesus was man on 
the one hand, and on the other, Jehovah himself, come 
down out of heaven? This apparent assertion of the 
Deity of Christ arises from the ambiguity of a word, 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 223 

and the use of a strong figure of speech ; and instead of 
establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, serves to show 
what false conclusions may be drawn from apparent 
facts. 

The word " Lord " is ambiguous in the Scriptures. 
Sometimes Jehovah is translated Lord. Sometimes it 
is applied to Jesus. But it was likewise a common ap- 
pellation of respect, addressed by an inferior to a supe- 
rior, or by one person to another out of courtesy ; and 
was merely equivalent to our modern word, Sir. Christ 
applies it to himself in the capacity of being the Master 
or Spiritual Head of his disciples. " Ye call me Mas- 
ter and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am." 

There is another passage in which this word occurs, 
and which throws so strong a light on Oriental manners 
and modes of speech, that I cannot forbear quoting 
it a: length. It will operate, I hope, as a caution to 
building hypotheses upon the customs and language of 
the East. " Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened 
unto a certain king, which would take account of his 
servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was 
brought unto him which owed him ten thousand tal- 
ents. But, forasmuch as he had not to pay, his Lord 
commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children 
and all that he had, and payment to be made. The 
servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, 
Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." 
It is said that Jesus was God, because he was worship- 
ped. Upon the same principle, this king must have 
been God, because he was worshipped. If Jesus is 
said to be God, because he is called Lord, so must this 



224 THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

king likewise be considered to be God, because his 
servant called him Lord. So Mary Magdalene addresses 
a person by the appellation of Lord, whom she took to 
be a gardener. " She, supposing him to be the gar- 
dener, saith unto him, Lord, if thou hast borne him 
hence, tell me where thou hast laid him." The appella- 
tion Lord, then, in the passage which we are consider- 
ing, proves nothing in relation to Christ's nature. 

The figure of which I spoke, is contained in the 
words, " from heaven." I am now to consider how 
far these words prove that Christ came literally from 
heaven. The phrase, " from heaven," when applied 
to the second man, is plainly intended as an antithesis 
to the phrase, " from the earth," applied to the first 
man. u The first man is of the earth, literally from 
the earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord from 
heaven." Now Adam did not literally come up out of 
the earth. He was not made under the surface of the 
ground, nor was he ever below the surface of the ground 
before he was above it. Neither was he wholly of 
earthly origin. His soul was from God, or, in Scripture 
phrase, from heaven. So the body of Christ was from 
the earth, and partook of the same nature as the body 
of Adam. Their physical natures were both the same. 
The contrast between the two, then, is not as to essen- 
tial constitution, but to character. The one was sensual, 
the other spiritual ; the one earthly, the other heavenly ; 
the one bore the stamp of mortality, the other of immor- 
tality. All this is confirmed by the next clause of the 
paragraph. u As is the earthy, such are they also that 
are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such are they also 



THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 225 

that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image 
of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heav- 
enly." 

It may be expected that I should take some notice of 
a famous text in the first Epistle of John, concerning 
the three heavenly witnesses. But it is now so generally 
regarded as an interpolation, by all parties, that it is no 
longer quoted by any well informed advocate of the 
Trinity. 



LECTURE X. 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
ACTS, X. 33. 

HOW GOD ANOINTED JESUS OF NAZARETH WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND 
WITH POWER. 

The subject of the present lecture is the Holy 
Ghost. And the points to be discussed are, Is the 
Holy Ghost a person ? Is the Holy Ghost a Person 
of a Trinity, having in himself distinctly all divine at- 
tributes ? These two points are said to be proved from 
the Scriptures. Texts of Scripture are alleged to 
prove these propositions. Other texts are brought to 
disprove them. The question is, On which side does 
the evidence preponderate ? Is there sufficient evi- 
dence to sustain those propositions, against the evi- 
dence which is presented on the other side ? The 
whole argument, therefore, is a balance of proofs. 
The way to proceed therefore will be, to bring up the 
texts on both sides, and weigh their force. 

There are, however, in this case, preliminary con- 
siderations, one of which is 4his ; Is the thing to be 
proved probable in itself ? Is it a thing likely to be 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 227 

true, independently of testimony ? Is there any intrin- 
sic difficulty in the doctrine of a Trinity itself, which 
the personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost goes to 
establish ? Does it conflict with known and fundamen- 
tal truths, and is the other side consistent with them ? 
I maintain that such is the case. The fundamental 
truth, both of the Old and New Testaments, is, " Jeho- 
vah your God, Jehovah is one." This doctrine as- 
serts, on the other hand, Jehovah your God, Jehovah 
is three persons. The Bible tells me that there is but 
one Object of worship. " God is a Spirit, and they 
that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in 
truth." But Trinitarianism tells me that there are 
three Objects of worship, God the Father, God the 
Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and bids me worship 
them. It tells me that there are three Persons in God, 
w r ho is a Spirit, one of whom is the Holy Spirit. 
Now the very idea of a Spirit in a Spirit, coextensive 
with it, and equal to it, is, in my judgment, a con- 
tradiction, and introduces into the mind the most utter 
confusion. 

The interpretation, then, which attributes distinct 
personality and Deity to the Holy Ghost, is antece- 
dently improbable. No defender of the Bible ought 
to admit it without the most unequivocal proof. In 
fact, the worship of the Holy Ghost is fast dying out 
of the world. It is retained in but two churches, the 
Catholic and the Episcopal. It is retained with them 
only by the circumstance, that they worship by written 
forms, which were composed before, or soon after the 
Reformation, before Biblical inquiry had searched into 



228 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

the grounds of the traditionary faith of the dark ages. 
The worship of other churches, being free and extem- 
poraneous, has conformed itself to the growing light of 
the Protestant world, and any address to the Holy 
Ghost, as a distinct object of adoration, is not often 
heard in any of them at the present day. This, I be- 
lieve, can arise from no other cause than the fact, that 
the belief on which this worship is founded is gradu- 
ally, though imperceptibly, becoming extinct. We now 
find multitudes, who call themselves Trinitarians, who 
have no definite belief in the personality of the Holy 
Spirit. That number, I believe, will still go on to 
increase, till the world will become practically Unita- 
rian, without avowing the creed. 

The interpretation which does not give personality 
to the Holy Ghost, has this mark of probability, that it 
maintains unimpaired the Divine Unity. It makes 
God one, in every sense. It does not multiply objects 
of worship. It rescues the Divine nature from the 
most irreconcilable contradictions. It injures no doc- 
trine necessary to piety and godliness. It denies no 
influence of God upon the mind of man, which is sug- 
gested as possible by reason, which is taught in Scrip- 
ture, and corroborated by experience. It removes all 
appearance of polytheism, which is introduced the mo- 
ment we conceive the idea that we have to do with 
more than one Divine Agent. 

It is, moreover, a historical fact, that the Jews, who 
derived their religious ideas from the Old Testament, 
the language of which, on this subject, is the source 
and basis of that of the New, never considered the 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 229 

Holy Spirit to be a Person, nor do they to this day. 
It is a historical fact, that the personality and Deity of 
the Spirit were not asserted in the creeds of the Chris- 
tian Church until three hundred and eighty-one years 
after Christ. All these facts render the doctrine im- 
probable in itself, and demand, of course, a higher de- 
gree of evidence to sustain it. 

Under these circumstances of antecedent probability 
and improbability, the case in the Scriptures stands 
thus. The words " Holy Ghost," " Holy Spirit," 
and u Spirit of God," occur in the Bible more than a 
hundred times. In all these cases, it is spoken of as a 
thing, and not a person, except in one conversation 
of Christ, in which he speaks of it as taking his place 
as the Aid, Guide, and Counsellor of his disciples, 
after his removal from them. In the Hebrew, there is 
no neuter gender. In the Greek, and through the 
New Testament, the words u Holy Ghost" are in 
the neuter gender, signifying that they are the name of 
a thing, and not of a person. The question, then, is 
simply this. Shall we make the almost unanimous con- 
sent of the cases in which the terms occur the rule, 
and the few cases the exception, or shall we make the 
few cases the rule, and the great majority the excep- 
tion ? Is it more probable that Jesus should have per- 
sonified in one conversation, that which was really a 
thing, or that what was really a person, should be truly 
represented as a person in but one conversation, 
and misrepresented as a thing in all the rest of the 
Bible ? This I believe to be a fair and accurate 
statement of the question. To my mind, this very 
20 



230 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

statement of facts, together with the considerations to 
which I have before adverted, comes very near to a 
demonstration. 

I shall proceed then to consider, first, those texts 
which are relied on to prove the personality of the 
Holy Spirit, as to their force and conclusiveness ; and 
then select, from the multitude of those which go to 
prove its impersonality, those which are most plain and 
decisive. 

The following are the strongest proof-texts of the 
personality of the Holy Ghost, taken from Christ's 
conversation with his disciples just before his separa- 
tion from them. " And I will pray the Father, and 
he shall give you another Comforter, that he may 
abide with you forever ; the Spirit of truth, which the 
world cannot receive, because it seeth it not, neither 
know 7 eth it, but ye shall see it, for it shall remain with 
you, and be in you." " But the Comforter, the Holy 
Ghost, which the Father shall send in my name, he 
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your 
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." 
" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." 
" Nevertheless, it is expedient for you that I go 
away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you. And when he is come, he will con- 
vince the w r orld of sin, of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment ; of sin, because they believe not in me ; of 
righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye see 
me no more ; of judgment, because the prince of this 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



231 



world is judged." " When he, the Spirit of truth, is 
come, he will guide you into all the truth ; for he shall 
not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear 
that shall he speak ; and he shall show all things to 
come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of 
mine, and shall show it unto you." 

These quotations are all from a single conversation 
of Christ, and I affirm, that, independent of the general 
tenor of the Scriptures, which is altogether on the 
other side, there is enough in these passages them- 
selves, to lead us to think that it is a personification, 
and not a person, of which he is speaking. We 
can see, moreover, ivhij he resorted to personifica- 
tion. He tells them that he is going from them, but 
in the Holy Spirit, they shall have a Companion, who 
will remain with them forever. " I have been your 
Teacher, but you have but partially understood me. 
When I am gone, my place as a Teacher shall be sup- 
plied by the Holy Spirit, which shall lead you into all 
the truth. The world has not received my mission. 
It shall receive a convincing testimony from the Holy 
Spirit, which shall be my Witness, and testify of me. 
What I have said to you needs explanation. The 
Holy Ghost shall be the Expositor of what I have 
said. I have given you the Gospel, but you have not 
understood it." The Holy Spirit shall make you un- 
derstand it all. He was about to leave them, and they 
would want a companion, a teacher, a guide, and an in- 
terpreter. He tells them that his place in all these 
characters, — for the comprehensive word, Paraclete, 
expresses them all, — will be supplied by the Holy Spirit. 

That all this refers merely to the manifestation of 



232 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



Divine power, which took place after Christ's cruci- 
fixion, and not to any person, ma}' be made to appear 
in many ways. The first of the sentences, which I 
have quoted above, is taken from a paragraph in which 
he speaks of the personal faith of his immediate dis- 
ciples. Philip had said, " Show us the Father, and it 
sufficeth us." Show us some manifestation of God, by 
which we may be certain of your connection with him. 
" Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with 
you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He 
that hath seen me, hath seen the Father ; and how 
sayest thou, Show us the Father ? Believest thou not, 
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? " To 
see God literally, with mortal eyes, is an impossibility. 
He can only be seen in his works. God is in me, and 
I am in him. God is with me, and in me, and mani- 
fests himself through me. " The icords that I speak 
unto you, I speak not of myself." What I say is by 
the inspiration of God. " The Father that abideth in 
me, he doeth the works." I cannot work miracles by 
my own power. It is God, who works in me, and 
through me. u Believe me, that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me, and if not, believe me for the 
works' sake." Believe me, on my personal assurance, 
that there is this connection between me and God ; and 
if you cannot take my word, believe me when my tes- 
timony is confirmed by the works themselves. They 
prove that God is with me, and in me, for without him 
I could not do them. 

So much for his own miracles. He then goes on to 
say, that their faith in him should further be confirmed 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 233 

by the miracles which they should be empowered to do 
themselves, when he should depart from the earth, for 
they should do even greater miracles than he had done. 
But how could the miracles, which they should be ena- 
bled to do, persuade them that he had a divine mission ? 
He goes on to explain : " Because I shall go to the 
Father, and whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that 
will I do." Because your miraculous powers will be 
granted you in answer to prayers, which you shall make 
in my name, and when you are acting in my cause. 
Miraculous powers, granted under such circumstances, 
will prove that I am with God, and that my mission 
from him is a reality. Miraculous powers, when granted 
to you by God, in answer to prayers made in my name, 
will be to you as if they came from me, and have the 
same efficacy to confirm your faith. 

He then goes on to add another idea ; that the Holy 
Spirit, the miraculous interposition of God after his 
death, would not only confirm their faith, but enlighten 
their minds, be u the Spirit of Truth," a spirit-reveal- 
ing truth, and so take his place as their Teacher. u If 
ye love me, ye will keep my commandments ; and I will 
pray the Father, and he will givey ou another Teacher, 
that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of 
Truth, which the world cannot receive, because it 
seeth it not, neither knoweth it ; but ye know it, for it 
shall remain with you, and be in you." The miracles, 
which will succeed my death, will be of such a nature, 
as not only to confirm your faith, but reveal to you the 
true nature of my religion, that it is spiritual, and not 
temporal. The world, the Jewish nation, will not be so 
20* 



234 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

instructed. By the very fact, that I am taken away 
from the earth, it will be demonstrated, that my king- 
dom is not of this world. The powers which you will 
receive, will not be those which will enable you to rule, 
but to teach the world, and their symbol will be not a 
sceptre, but tongues of fire. My kingdom, you will 
perceive, is the kingdom of peace and righteousness 
within ; and you shall feel, and enjoy, and be sat- 
isfied with it. This will be too quiet and unostenta- 
tious for your worldly and ambitious countrymen, 
and they will fail to perceive and recognize it as di- 
vine. 

In the next quotation the same idea is repeated, with 
the addition of another circumstance, that the revela- 
tion which they will receive, will be a continuation of 
that which they have received through him. God is 
the ultimate source of it in both cases. He had origi- 
nated nothing, but had received all from God. The 
word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who 
sent me. These things have I said to you, being yet 
with you ; but the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, which 
the Father will send in my name," in furtherance of 
my religion, " he shall teach you all things, and bring 
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said 
unto you." The disclosures I have made to you of 
the Divine will, are from God. The miracles which 
will succeed my death will be likewise from the 
same God, and will complete the revelation of truth, 
which I have begun, will bring to your remembrance 
what I have said to you, and explain what is dark 
in it. 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 235 

In the third place, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as 
a witness, not to convince the disciples, but the world, 
the Jewish nation. There can be, of course, no per- 
sonality in this. The Jews had no personal interview 
with the Holy Ghost. They did witness the miraculous 
works of God, which bore testimony to his divine mis- 
sion. u If I had not done among them the works, 
which no man ever did, they had not had sin. But 
now they have seen, and hated both me and ?ny 
Father." Here he calls seeing his miraculous ivorks, 
seeing God, which explains what he said to Philip, in 
the beginning of the conversation : " He that hath seen 
me, hath seen the Father." " But when the Comforter 
is come, whom I will send you from the Father, the 
Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, 
he shall bear witness of me." Not to the disciples, 
of course, for he is not speaking of them, but to the 
world. And he adds, " And ye also shall bear witness, 
for you have been with me from the beginning." 

In the next quotation, he explains what the testimo- 
ny of the Spirit is to be, and what it is to effect. \ ' But 
I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go 
away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come 
unto you. But if I go away, I will send him unto 
you." It is evident that there is no person, or per- 
sonal manifestation, here intended. If there were, no 
good reason can be given why the Comforter could not 
come during his ministry. For, being clothed with 
omnipotence, he might have convinced the w T hole Jew- 
ish nation, as well as made the disciples acquainted 
with the exact nature of the religion they were to teach 



236 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

during the life of Jesus. But if we interpret the Holy 
Spirit to mean those miraculous events which succeeded 
the death of Christ, then we see the reason why they 
could not take place before his death. In the first 
place, his resurrection was the chief of those miraculous 
events, and that could not take place until he died. 
The next was his ascension to heaven, so as to be no 
more upon the earth. His resurrection demonstrated 
that he was the Messiah, for it was the test upon 
which he had staked his whole mission. The Jews 
had asked him for a sign, a miraculous proof of his 
claims, and he had said to them, u Destroy this tem- 
ple, and in three days I will raise it up." On another 
occasion he gave as a sign that " he should be three 
days and three nights in the heart of the earth." These 
signs could not be fulfilled unless he had died. His 
ascension was another sign, and showed the world, 
by his removal from the earth, without destroying his 
enterprise, that his kingdom was not to be of this world, 
but was to be spiritual, exercised by him, though invisi- 
ble, through his doctrines and his institutions. 

So broad does he make the meaning of the Comforter, 
that he makes it cover, in part, the ordinary and non- 
miraculous operations of God's providence, the punish- 
ment of the Jewish government and nation, which he in- 
troduces under the phrase, u the Prince of this world." 
After this explanation, we shall more readily perceive the 
bearing of what follows. " When he is come, he shall 
convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment. Of sin, because they believe not on me ; of 
righteousness, or rather justice, because I go unto the 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



237 



Father, and ye see me no more ; of judgment, because 
the prince of this world is judged.*' These miraculous 
manifestations will convince the Jews of their sin in re- 
jecting me, of the justice of my being taken away from 
them in the midst of my beneficent labors, and that the 
calamities which are to befall and destroy the nation, are 
judgments upon them for their treatment of me. 

It must be recollected, that the disciples were as 
much in the dark about Jesus, and his purposes, at this 
moment, as the Jews themselves. They had just been 
disputing among themselves, who should be the chief 
officers of his worldly kingdom. They could not even 
understand his explanation. All that he had said and 
done had been a perfect riddle to them. They wanted 
the interpretation of the same miraculous events which 
the Jews did, in order to enable them to understand 
both their position and his, and what he had taught 
them. Jesus therefore subjoins, " I have many things 
to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now ;" it is im- 
possible for you to understand what I wish to commu- 
nicate. But these same miraculous events, which shall 
convince the Jews, shall enlighten you, and enable you 
to understand all that I have said to you. u When he, 
the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all 
the truth." Not that it shall reveal anything new 7 , or dif- 
ferent from what I have taught. The Holy Spirit shall, 
indeed, predict future events, but add no new truth to my 
revelation u For he shall not speak of himself; but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he 
shall show you things to come.'" He shall confirm my 
mission, and show the fulness of my communications, 



238 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



in the fact that he adds nothing, but merely explains 
what I have said. cc He shall glorify me, for he shall 
receive of mine, and show it unto you." 

Such is Christ's personification of the Holy Spirit. 
Such are the reasons for thinking that it is mere person- 
ification. He had been the companion of his disciples, 
by his presence to give them aid and encouragement ; 
his place was now to be supplied by the direct interpo- 
sition of Heaven, to guide and sustain them. He had 
been their teacher; henceforth their teacher was to be 
a miraculous Providence, that should explain more ful- 
ly what he had taught when he was with them. His 
own miracles had been his witness to his disciples of 
his divine mission; now, the miracles they should be 
empowered to work themselves would answer the same 
purpose. 

Not only have we these indications of personifica- 
tion, in the language of Christ, but we have his own 
interpretation of it from his own lips after his resurrec- 
tion, and from the events themselves which he predicted. 
After his resurrection, we have his words to his dis- 
ciples, repeating his promise, and they enable us to 
determine his meaning in the former case. " To whom 
he showed himself alive," Luke tells us, " after his 
passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them 
forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the 
kingdom of God : And, being assembled together with 
them, commanded them that they should not depart 
from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, 
which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly 
baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized withJhe 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



239 



Holy Ghost, not many days hence." Here Christ is 
his own interpreter. He repeats his own promise, 
and by his form of expression enables us to determine 
whether, on the former occasion, he meant to say that 
the Holy Ghost was really a person, or whether he mere- 
ly personified it. Here he says that his disciples shall 
be baptized with it, and compares it to water. Water 
is not a person, nor can men be properly said to be 
baptized with a person. In another place we have a 
definition of the same thing from the lips of Christ. 
tc Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you ; 
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye are en- 
dued with power from on high." Here, what is in 
the former case called being u baptized with the Holy 
Ghost," is called being " endued with power from on 
high." Power from on high is certainly not a person, 
yet it is used as synonymous with the Holy Ghost, and 
with the Comforter. 

We have a historical account of the fulfilment of this 
prophecy, in part, in the second chapter of Acts. u And 
when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were 
all of one accord, in one place. And suddenly there 
came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, 
and it filled the house where they were sitting." "And 
they were all filled ivith the Holy Ghost, and began to 
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance." Was this a person, with whom they were filled ? 
Not only so, we have Peter's explanation of this matter 
upon the spot. " But this is that which was spoken by 
the prophet Joel : And it shall come to pass in the last 
days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all 



240 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men 
shall dream dreams." Can a person be poured out ? 
Can a part of a person be poured out ? " I will pour 
out of my Spirit. " That this was the very thing that was 
promised, we learn further on. " This Jesus hath God 
raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, 
being by the right hand of God exalted, and having re- 
ceived of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he 
hath shed forth this which you see and hear." Can a 
person be shed forth ? A strong argument this against 
the Deity of Jesus, as well as the personality of 
the Spirit, for he is said to be exalted by the right of 
God, and to have received of the Father, of the whole 
Deity, of course, for Father is used as synonymous 
with God, the promise of the Holy Ghost. We see, 
moreover, that whatever power the Apostles consid- 
ered Jesus to exert, during their age, was not inherent, 
but derived. When, therefore, Peter says to the lame 
man, u In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and 
walk," he did not mean that Jesus would heal him by 
his own underived power, but that God would heal him, 
in testimony of the divine mission and authority of Je- 
sus ; for the Apostles afterwards pray to God, u And 
now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy 
servants that with all boldness they may speak thy 
word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that 
signs and wonders may be done, in the name of thy 
holy servant Jesus." 

Not only is this promised Holy Ghost said to be 
poured out, shed forth, &c.,but in this very connection 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



241 



is called a gift. "While Peter yet spake, the Holy- 
Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And they 
of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came 
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was pour- 
ed out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then answered 
Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as 
well as we ?" 

Such, then, is the force of the argument for the per- 
sonality of the Holy Spirit, derived from Christ's per- 
sonification of it in his conversation with his disciples. 
How far the force of that argument is done away by his 
own subsequent language on the same subject, and by 
the language in which the actual fulfilment of the prom- 
ise is described, each one must determine. 

I now come to the argument against the personality 
of the Holy Ghost, derived from the fact, that the Holy 
Ghost and the Spirit of God are synonymous in the 
Scriptures. In one of the very passages which we have 
been considering, Peter says that the Holy Ghost, which 
was then shed forth, was the same thing that was spoken 
of as the Spirit of God. "This is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel, and it shall come to pass 
in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my 
Spirit upon all flesh." The phrase " my Spirit," is as 
unfavorable to the personality of the Spirit, as the 
phrase "pour out." One equal Person of a Trinity 
would hardly speak of another equal Person of the Trin- 
ity as my Spirit. We are further enlightened as to 
whether the Spirit of God is a separate person, by 
what is said in another place. " For what man know- 
21 



242 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

eth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is 
in him ? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, 
but the Spirit of God." Here it is said that the Spirit 
of God bears the same relation to God, that the spirit 
of man bears to man. The soul of man means man 
himself, and no one thinks of calling it a separate per- 
son. So, according to the Apostle, it is just as much 
an abuse of language to call the Spirit of God a person, 
separate from God himself. Peter says of Jesus, that 
God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power. 
Anointing certainly does not agree with the attributes 
of a person. This asserts that Jesus wrought his mira- 
cles, not by his own inherent power, but by a power 
given him of God. Jesus said of himself, " But if I 
cast out demons by the spirit of God, then is the king- 
dom of God come unto you." This is by Matthew. 
Luke reports it, " But if I, by the finger of God cast 
out demons." Nothing can be more evident than that 
the << Holy Ghost," "power," " Spirit of God," and 
" finger of God," all mean the same thing, and cer- 
tainly no one would ever suppose that a person was 
meant by these various forms of expression. 

It is recorded of Jesus : u Now when all the people 
were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, being 
baptized, and praying, the heavens were opened, and 
the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a 
dove, upon him, and a voice from heaven, which said, 
Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased." 
Afterwards it is said : " And Jesus being full of the 
Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan, and ivas led by the 
Spirit into the wilderness." He then went to Naza- 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 243 

reth, and read from Isaiah, and applied to himself the 
following passage. u The Spirit of the Lord is upon 
me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gos- 
pel to the poor, and hath sent me to heal the broken- 
hearted," &c. In one case the Holy Ghost descends 
upon him ; in another it Jills him ; in another, under 
the name of " the Spirit," it leads him ; in another, un- 
der the name of u the Spirit of the Lord," it is upon 
him, becanse he is " anointed " and " sent " to do cer- 
tain things. Is there any appearance of personality in 
all this ? Matthew applies to him a passage from the 
same prophet, Isaiah. " Behold my servant, whom I 
have chosen ; my beloved, in whom my soul is well 
pleased ; / will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall 
show judgment unto the Gentiles." Can this fairly be 
interpreted of a person ? Would God be said to put 
one person upon another ? Is it not much more ra- 
tional and consistent to interpret it to mean miraculous 
qualifications for the office of the Messiah. It is said, 
moreover, of Jesus : " For he whom God hath sent, 
s peaketh the words of God ; for God giveth not the 
Spirit by measure unto him^ In still another place, 
Peter says of him : cc Ye men of Israel, hear these 
words ; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God 
among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which 
God did by Mm in the midst of you, as ye also 
know." 

The passages quoted above have a bearing not only on 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, but on what is called 
the divine nature of Christ. It is said that Christ had a 
human, and a divine nature. His human nature consisted 



244 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

of a human body and a human soul. His divine nature 
was the second Person of the Trinity ; a Person pos- 
sessing all divine attributes ; among others, omniscience 
and omnipotence. That Person making a part of him- 
self, if this were a fact, must have qualified him for all the 
offices of the Messiah. But here we read that he did 
not commence his official work until the Spirit, which, 
according to the Trinitarian theory, is the third Person 
of the Trinity, descended upon him. Then he is led 
into the wilderness by the Spirit. Would he need any 
such leading, if his own being consisted of two natures, 
one of which possessed every attribute of the Spirit ? 
Would one Person of the Trinity by led by another ? 
He returned into Galilee full of the Spirit. How 
could that be, if one Divine Person already filled and 
pervaded his whole being ? He declares, that he casts 
out demons by the Spirit of God. He made no use, 
then, of his own divine nature, which was itself omnipo- 
tent. That is passed over in entire silence. 

The only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn 
from this is, that his divine nature is a fiction, or rather 
a misapplication of language, and in fact answers only to 
this very Holy Spirit which rested upon him. And 
the very fact, that what was miraculous about him was 
ascribed to this Holy Spirit, negatives the supposition 
of any inherent divine nature in him. There are in the 
Bible many instances in which the Holy Spirit evidently 
means extraordinary or miraculous endowments, when 
no personality can possibly be intended. There is one 
in the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, in which the connec- 
tion serves as a kind of definition of what is meant by 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 245 

the phrase. " And there shall come forth a Rod out of 
the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his 
roots : And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, 
the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of 
counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear 
of the Lord." The latter part of the sentence is evi- 
dently a development, or rather a definition, of what is 
meant by the former, and so enables us to understand 
what is intended to be expressed in it. No person can 
be meant by u the spirit of wisdom and understanding," 
or by u the spirit of counsel and might," nor yet by 
"the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord." 
To this class of texts belongs what is said in the second 
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the means by 
which God confirmed the testimony of the Apostles. 
u God also bearing them witness, both with signs and 
wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy 
Ghost, according to his will." What is here rendered 
cc gifts," is, in the original, u divisions," or u portions." 
Now, the Holy Ghost, if a person, cannot be divided or 
portioned out. Such language agrees with miraculous 
powers of different kinds, but does not agree with per- 
sonality. And then, there is something marked in the 
language which attributes the whole agency to God, and 
the instrumentality only to the Holy Ghost, or rather to 
the miracles and signs, which are called divisions of the 
Holy Ghost. Now, the very fact, that God is spoken 
of as the only Agent in this matter, denies by implica- 
tion both the Deity and the personality of the Spirit, for 
the word God, here, being without limitation, compre- 
hends the whole Deity, and shuts out the Holy Ghost 
21* 



246 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

from being anything more than a name for his agency, 
under certain circumstances. 

Precisely coincident with the view exhibited in these 
two quotations, is that contained in Paul's directions to 
the Corinthians, concerning the use of spiritual gifts. 
All spiritual gifts, he says, are manifestations of the same 
miraculous power. They are all given to the ministers 
of Christ, to further the cause of their common Lord. 
They are all wrought by the power of God, who is the 
author, both of Christ's mission, and the miracles which 
confirm it. u Now there are diversities of gifts, but the 
same Spirit, and there are differences of administration, 
but the same Lord. And there are diversities of ope- 
rations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." 
It is said by some, that here is mention of the three 
Persons of the Trinity in connection, each one of whom 
is represented as concerned in the working of the mira- 
cles of the New Testament. But as it happens, the 
third Person of this Trinity only is God, " the same 
God who worketh all in all." God, surely, is not a 
Person of a Trinity. The Apostle goes on to enumer- 
ate what these diversities of gifts, administrations, and 
operations were. " But the manifestation of the Spirit 
is given to every man to profit withal." That is to 
say, different members of the church have different gifts, 
all calculated for the edification of the whole. u To 
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another 
the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, to another 
faith by the same Spirit, to another the gift of healing 
by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, 
to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 247 

another divers kinds of tongues, to another the interpre- 
tation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and 
the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as it 
will." It is said, that a personal act is here attributed 
to the Spirit, u dividing as it will." But this must be 
modified by what goes before, the representation that 
God is the only Agent. u And there are diversities of 
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in 
all." And by what comes after. cc For by one Spirit 
we are all baptized into one body, whether w T e be Jews 
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been 
all made to drink into one Spirit." That certainly can- 
not be a person, into which the Christians were said to 
drink, nor could the Spirit properly be said to make 
the Christians drink into itself. It was God, of course, 
" which worketh all in all," who made them to drink 
into the same Spirit, to partake of those miraculous 
powers which were conferred alike on all Christians, and 
signified that they were all alike Christians before God, 
whatever had been their original extraction. 

There is another class of texts, in which the Spirit of 
God, and the Holy Spirit, are put, not for a Person of a 
Trinity, but for the very essence of God, just as the 
human soul, or spirit, is put for the essence of man. 
When we say that our souls are sad, we mean nothing 
more than that we are sad. The Psalmist says, in 
speaking of the omnipresence of God ; " Whither shall I 
go from thy Spirit , or whither shall I flee from thy pres- 
ence." Here " presence " and " spirit " are intended 
to mean the same thing, the fact that God is everywhere. 
What is meant, is defined in the next verse, for he goes 



248 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

on to enumerate the parts of the universe where the 
spirit and presence of God are diffused. u If I ascend 
up into heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in 
hell, behold, thou art there." So in the New Testa- 
ment : " Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, 
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? If any 
man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." 
This, of course, can be nothing other than the Divine 
essence, which indeed pervades all space, but was con- 
sciously present in those who felt themselves to possess 
miraculous powers, as it is a maxim, that God cannot 
act except where he is. 

I might go on, did space permit, to quote for hours, 
the different portions of the Scriptures which speak of 
the Holy Spirit, and give you an explanation of each ; 
but I trust any more exposition would be superfluous. 
I shall merely mention two more texts, which are al- 
leged in support of the Deity and personality of the 
Spirit, and then close with some general remarks. 

It is said that there is such a thing as blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost, and it is said to be more hein- 
ous than that against the other two Persons of the Trin- 
ity. u Wherefore, I say unto you, All manner of sin 
and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blas- 
phemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. 
And whosoever speaketh a w T ord against the Son of 
man, it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world nor in that which is to come." 
Mark tells us that the blasphemy, which was here re- 
buked, consisted in attributing his casting out demons, to 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



249 



his possessing an unclean spirit himself. " Because, 
they said ; He hath an unclean spirit." This would be 
a valid argument, were nothing in Scripture said to be 
blasphemed but God. But this is not the fact. Moses 
might be blasphemed, the temple might be blasphemed, 
the law might be blasphemed, the king might be blas- 
phemed. It was witnessed against Naboth : " Naboth 
did blaspheme God and the king." It was witnessed 
against Stephen : " We have heard him speak blasphem- 
ous words against Moses and against God." Likewise 
false witnesses testified : " This man ceaseth not to speak 
blasphemous words against this holy place, and against 
the Law." Blasphemy does not prove the person or 
thing against which it is uttered, to be God, or a Person 
of the Trinity ; for in that case, Moses must be admitted 
into the Godhead, for blasphemy was witnessed to 
have been spoken against Moses and against God. 

The law, too, and the temple, are said to have been 
blasphemed, as well as the Holy Ghost. The law and 
the temple were not persons ; neither, by parity of rea- 
soning, need the Holy Ghost be a person, from the 
circumstance that it is blasphemed. The blasphemy 
in the case we are considering, consisted, according to 
Mark, in attributing Christ's power of casting out 
demons to the devil, and not to God. It was unpar- 
donable, probably, because it was an obstinate resistance 
of the highest evidence of revelation, and of itself made 
impossible any benefit from Christ's mission. 

There is an expression in the Epistle to the He- 
brews, which is thought to prove, not only the Deity, 
but the eternity of the Holy Spirit. u How much 



250 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal 
Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works, to serve the living 
God." There is scarcely a text of the Bible, which 
has been more misapprehended than this. Eternal spirit 
has here no reference to the Holy Spirit, but to 
Christ's immortal spirit. This is made evident in the 
following way. The writer is contrasting Jesus with 
the Jewish high priest, and Christianity with Judaism. 
The high priest went once a year into the temple at Je- 
rusalem, into the holy of holies, into the very presence 
of God. Christ went once for all into God's true tem- 
ple in the heavens. The Jewish high priest was mor- 
tal ; in a few years he died, and was succeeded by 
another. Christ went into the temple in the heavens, 
after his resurrection, in a state of immortality, <c by 
his immortal spirit, offered himself without spot to 
God;" not " through the eternal Spirit." This is 
made evident by several parallel expressions : u But 
this man, because he continueth forever, hath an un- 
changeable priesthood." u After the similitude of 
Melchisedec, there ariseth another priest, who is made 
not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after 
the power of an endless life." " Wherefore he is 
able also to save to the uttermost, them that come unto 
God through him, seeing that he ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for them." What in one case is meant by 
his " immortal spirit," is expressed in the other cases 
by " continueth forever," " endless life," cc ever liv- 
eth." This expression then, which may to some ap- 
pear, at first sight, strong evidence for the personality 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



251 



and eternity of the Holy Spirit, has really nothing to 
do with the subject 

Such, then, are the arguments which sustain the belief 
of the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit ; such 
are the portions of the Scriptures which are thought 
to teach that doctrine most clearly. Such, too, as I 
have given, I conceive to be their true exposition. 
That exposition leaves the doctrine, as you must have 
perceived, no support whatever. The conclusion is 
inevitable, that it is a human invention, which has now 
become traditionary, and is handed down from age to 
age without examination. 

But if it be not true, what follows ? Merely that 
the Christian world has labored under a mistake upon 
this subject, as it has upon many others. Nothing es- 
sential to Christianity is in the least degree affected by 
it. On the contrary, our religion is made more plain, 
reasonable, intelligible, and credible, without it than 
with it. Nothing that is meant in the Scriptures by the 
terms, cc Holy Spirit,"* u Spirit of God,"' &c, is de- 
nied. It is all affirmed. It is all as true and important, 
on the supposition that the Holy Spirit is the essence, 
energy, or agency of God, as that it is a person. In- 
deed, it relieves our devotions of endless contradiction 
and embarrassment. It relieves us of the inconsistency 
of praying to the Holy Ghost as an equal Person of 
the Trinity, and then praying to God to send the Holy 
Spirit. It relieves us from the philosophical incongruity 
of supposing that two or three infinite Spirits pervade 
the universe, each of the same nature, and each pos- 
sessing all Divine attributes. It brings us back to the 



252 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

great and important truth, of One, Undivided, Infinite 
Agent in the universe, to whom alone all allegiance, 
and worship, and adoration are due. It leaves us unem- 
barrassed the great and fundamental truth, the basis of 
both Testaments, " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your 
God, Jehovah is One." 



LECTURE XI. 



THE ATONEMENT. 

JOHN, I. 23. 

THE NEXT DAY JOHN SEETH JESUS COMING UNTO HIM, AND SAITH, BEHOLD 
THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD. 

In treating of the doctrine of Atonement, which is 
to be the subject of this lecture, I shall first state 
those points in which all Christians are agreed, then 
the points in which they differ, and the reasons for 
which we adopt our views of the subject, and reject 
those which are regarded by some as vital to salva- 
tion. 

We all admit the Atonement to be a reality. We 
all agree that Christ died for the spiritual benefit of 
mankind. We all admit that it was to procure the par- 
don of sin, and to induce man to forsake it ; that it was 
" to take away the sin of the world," that he suffered. 
They agree in the historical facts, that Christ died a 
violent and painful death, in consequence of taking 
upon himself the office of the Messiah, the person 
promised in the prophecies of the Old Testament. So 
far the parties are agreed. 

But different sects of Christians disagree as to the 
22 



254 THE ATONEMENT. 

manner in which this was effected. One portion of 
the Christian world has attributed the efficacy of Christ's 
death to the divine nature, which was a part of his per- 
son. The second article of the Church of England 
reads thus : " The Son, which is the Word of the 
Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the 
very and eternal God, of one substance with the Fa- 
ther, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Vir- 
gin, of her substance ; so that two whole and perfect 
natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, 
were joined together in one Person, never to be divi- 
ded, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man ; 
who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to 
reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not 
only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of 
man." 

After the discussion we have been going over in 
the ten lectures I have already given, I can scarcely 
believe my own senses when I see this extraordinary 
composition standing as the second article of the creed 
of that church, which has lately been making such 
claims to be the only true church of Christ on earth. 
It was very and eternal God, who suffered and died 
upon the cross, to reconcile his Father to us. 

When we see such sentiments as these subscribed 
for almost three hundred years, by deacon and priest, 
bishop and archbishop, apparently without reflecting on 
the tremendous assertions they contain, we are tempted 
to fold our hands in despair, and give up all hope of 
ever seeing Christianity disencumbered of the specula- 
tions of the dark ages. The very and eternal God 



THE ATONEMENT. 255 

was crucified, to reconcile his Father to us ! Let us 
see if there be any ground for such a supposition as the 
crucifixion and death of God. 

We should be pointed, I suppose, to such passages 
as this : u When we were enemies, we were recon- 
ciled to God, by the death of his Son ; " and this : 
" They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, 
and put him to an open shame." This conclusion was 
arrived at, by supposing u Son of God '* to be equiv- 
alent to " God the Son." But the shocking conclu- 
sion, that God died, one would suppose, would have 
led them to doubt the identity of the expressions, 
" Son of God" and "God the Son,"' and induced 
them to examine the subject anew. That examination 
would have led them to the conclusion, which we have 
arrived at more than once in the course of these lec- 
tures, that the epithet, ct Son of God," has nothing to 
do with the nature of Christ, but is merely equivalent 
to Messiah. Some have seen the startling character 
of the proposition, that God died, or suffered in any 
way, and, moreover, the natural impossibility of one 
Person of a Trinity making atonement to another ; 
since, after all, there is but one divine essence, which 
is shared by the three Persons. They, therefore, 
softened the matter by saying, that the value of the 
sacrifice was enhanced by the fact, that the victim was 
connected in some mysterious way with a divine nature. 
But this palliation is no cure for the essential defects 
of the system, for such a connection must have dimin- 
ished the intensity of Chrisfs sufferings, nay, have re- 
duced them almost to nothing. This supposition, too, is 



256 THE ATONEMENT. 

at war with the narrative. That makes Christ exclaim 
upon the cross, " My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me ? " This must have been uttered either in 
his divine or his human nature, or in the complex per- 
son which was made up by the combination of both. If 
he uttered it in his human nature, then his divine nature 
had nothing to do with his sufferings ; and if he uttered 
it in his divine nature or his complex person, he uttered 
what was not true. God could not forsake him. He 
could have suffered, then, only in his human nature. All 
ideas, then, of an infinite atonement, from the infinite 
nature of the victim, vanish, and become impossible 
suppositions. To all this, the Scriptures oppose one 
uniform representation, that it was Jesus, the Messiah, 
who suffered, and died, and rose again for human good. 
It was Christ who died for our sins, according to the 
Scriptures. We omit, for the present, all discussion 
of the sense in which he died for our sins. But Christ 
signifies not God, but the anointed of God. The doc- 
trine of atonement, then, has no connection with the 
Trinity, and all that representation which you some- 
times hear, of God's sending his Son from heaven, or 
the first Person of the Trinity sending the second, has 
no meaning, no foundation whatever. For u there is 
one God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for 
all" Whatever atonement was made, was made by 
the man Christ Jesus. 

The next theory is, that Christ suffered as a substitute 
for mankind, their sins being imputed to him, and his 
righteousness imputed to them. For this theory many 



THE ATONEMENT. 257 

strong passages are quoted, such, for instance, as the 
following : " Who himself bare our sins in his own body 
on the tree." "For Christ, also, once suffered for 
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto 
God." u For he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness 
of God through him." Now there are insuperable diffi- 
culties in the way of this interpretation. The first is, 
that it invokes injustice on the part of God. If Christ 
made an atonement for the sins of mankind, in the sense 
of suffering their penalty, then God's justice must be 
satisfied, and mankind in equity ought to be released, 
just as the debtor must in justice be liberated when 
the debt is discharged by another party. It is injustice 
to exact the debt from the debtor and the surety be- 
sides. And are the penalties of sin remitted ? What 
are the penalties of sin ? They are the outward suffer- 
ings which it causes, the inward degradation, and the re- 
morse of conscience which it occasions. Now it is by 
the will and immediate agency of God, that sin is so 
punished. But at any moment he might suspend or 
abrogate that law. Has he done so in consequence of 
the sufferings of Christ ? By no means. That law con- 
tinues as much in force as ever it was. Another 
condition is interposed, that of repentance. It is a law 
of the mind that repentance shall be a remedy for sin. 
It changes the view of the mind in regard to it. It 
breaks off the habit, and by the benevolent ordinance 
of God, restores peace to the troubled conscience. The 
laws of the mind are such, that one man cannot take the 
guilt of another upon himself. What another man suf- 
22* 



258 THE ATONEMENT. 

fers for my sins cannot relieve my conscience. It 
only increases my suffering, that my misconduct has 
been the cause or occasion of another man's suffering. 
How, then, shall we account for the fact, that such lan- 
guage as I have recited, is found in the New Testa- 
ment ? The key of these expressions is found in the 
fact, that the Jews always connected the ideas of suffer- 
ing with sin. They seem to have had no idea that it is 
sometimes sent as a trial. Hence the question of the 
disciples concerning the blind man : " Which did sin, 
this man or his parents, that he was born blind ?" 
Christ was sinless, yet he suffered. According to 
their theory he must have suffered for sin. Whose sin 
was it ? The only sins to which his sufferings had 
any relation, were those of Christians, in changing their 
characters and conduct. So, you will observe, in all 
these cases, the innocence of Christ is mentioned in con- 
nection with his sufferings. In the first case, in the 
following language : " Who did no sin, neither was 
guile found in his mouth." The moral purpose comes 
afterwards, and it is not so much the suffering for the 
sins that are past, as to produce a moral change in the 
sinner himself, u that we, being dead to sin, should 
live to righteousness i by whose stripes ye were healed," 
made morally sound, as well as abased for guilt. In 
the second case, there is the same mention of his inno- 
cence, and the moral renovation, which is the whole 
purpose of Christ's death " For Christ also suffered 
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
unto God." In the third case, there is precisely the 
same sentiment, conveyed indifferent language. " For 



THE ATONEMENT. 259 

he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, 
that we might be made the righteousness of God through 
him." To bear our sins, and to regenerate us morally, 
are things entirely distinct, as much so as paying a 
man's debts is distinct from inducing him to become a 
sober and industrious man, able and willing to support 
himself ; and the first is of small consequence when 
compared with the second. 

The next theory of the atonement, is that which 
makes the death of Christ an expiation, a propitiatory 
offering, a satisfaction to the divine law. The law of 
God had been broken, and its honor violated. To vin- 
dicate its honor, it was necessary that some victim should 
be offered up, whose death should stand in the place 
of the penalties which the law inflicts upon the trans- 
gressor. To substantiate this view of things, such pas- 
sages are quoted as I read at the commencement of 
this lecture. " Behold the lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world." u Even Christ, our Passo- 
ver, is sacrificed for us." " If any man sin, we have 
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the right- 
eous, who is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours 
only, but for the sins of the whole world." u Herein 
is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, 
and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 
u But now, once, in the end of the world, he hath ap- 
peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 

It is not denied, that the New Testament is full of 
such language. But the question is, what does it 
mean? Does it mean that the death of Christ was a 
real sacrifice, or only like a sacrifice ? a literal or a 



260 THE ATONEMENT. 

figurative sacrifice ? Then there is a question behind 
that : Is there any intrinsic efficacy in a sacrifice, under 
any circumstances, abstracted from the moral disposi- 
tions and exercises of those who offer it ? These are the 
questions which we now propose to discuss. I begin, 
then, by saying, that there is no intrinsic efficacy in any 
sacrifice, to take away sin. Go back to the very com- 
mencement of sacrifices, and the very first offering 
that was made. Cain and Abel were the persons who, 
according to the Bible, instituted sacrifices, and demon- 
strated the very principle which I maintain, that there 
is no intrinsic efficacy in a sacrifice. Cain and Abel both 
performed the same external act. They both brought 
a sacrifice to God. Now, if there were any intrinsic 
efficacy in a sacrifice, then both would have been alike 
accepted, and Cain's sin, which was then brooding in 
his heart, must have been forgiven too. But such is 
not the nature of things, nor the government of God. 
The outward sacrifice is only an expression of an inter- 
nal sentiment. If the sentiment is not there, then the 
sacrifice is vain, and not only so, what it expresses is 
false. It passes over to a mockery of God. Sacrifi- 
ces were not intended to be substitutes for moral virtues. 
This sentiment is often expressed in the Old Testament. 
Hear what Samuel says to Saul. u Hath the Lord as 
great delight in burnt offerings, and sacrifices, as in 
obeying the voice of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better 
than sacrifice , and to hearken, than the fat of rams." 
The prophet Micah has placed this subject in a strong 
light. " Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, 
and bow myself before the high God ? Shall I come 



THE ATONEMENT. 261 

before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year 
old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of 
rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I 
give my first-born for my transgression, and the fruit 
of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath showed 
thee, O man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord re- 
quire of thee, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk 
humbly with thy God ? '* Isaiah is still stronger upon 
the inefficacy of sacrifices, and the superiority of moral 
virtue. He says, that forgiveness shall follow, not the 
offering of sacrifices, but the reformation of the char- 
acter and conduct. u To what purpose is the multitude 
of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord ? I am full 
of burnt offerings, and rams, and the fat of fed beasts, 
and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, 
or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, 
who hath required this at your hands to tread my 
courts ? Incense is an abomination to me ; bring no 
more vain oblations. Wash you, make you clean, put 
away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; 
cease to do evil, learn to do well ; seek judgment, re- 
lieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the 
widow. Come now, let us reason together, saith the 
Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be 
wldte as snow ; though they be red as crimson, they 
shall be as wool." Here, then, is forgiveness without 
sacrifice, on the ground of repentance and amendment 
alone, to the exclusion of sacrifices, and sacrifices are 
expressly declared to be of no intrinsic efficacy. God 
declares himself ready to pardon those who really re- 
pented and truly reformed, even if they omitted sacri- 
fices altogether. 



262 THE ATONEMENT. 

Sacrifice was an outward act, intended to awaken 
and express gratitude, devotion, penitence ; but if they 
were unaccompanied by these emotions, they were of 
no avail. A lamb was offered up for centuries at the 
temple at Jerusalem, morning and evening. That hour 
was selected by the whole nation, as the hour of their 
morning and evening devotions. Their devotions, with- 
out doubt, were assisted by this fact of the celebration, 
at that moment, of a divinely appointed ordinance. 
And wherever they were scattered, on the shores of 
the Euphrates or the banks of the Tiber, they conse- 
crated that hour to the remembrance of Jerusalem, and 
the worship of God. But if, at that hour, no thought 
had been turned to God, and no heart been kindled to 
•devotion, the smoke of that sacrifice would have as- 
cended to heaven in vain. 

Then if the death of Christ were a real sacrifice, if it 
had awakened no penitence, and persuaded no human 
being to a new life, he would have died in vain. And 
if all mankind could have been converted to angelic pu- 
rity and holiness loithout the death of Christ, we have 
no reason to believe that he w 7 ould have died the bitter 
death of the cross. 

Supposing, then, that we admit that the death of 
Christ was literally an expiatory sacrifice ; the question 
then returned, What was an expiatory sacrifice ? Had 
it any efficacy of itself '? Did it expiate anything with- 
out the moral acts of the person concerned in it ? It 
was necessary that it should be offered by the penitent, 
or it was of no avail. It derived all its value from the 
moral dispositions by which it was accompanied, and 



THE ATONEMENT. 263 

without them it meant nothing. It was no more than 
killing an ox or a sheep under any other circumstances. 
David understood this in the twilight of the old dispen- 
sation. After two of the most horrid crimes that man 
can commit, he prays: " Thou desirest not sacrifice, 
else would I bring it. Thou delightest not in burnt offer- 
ing. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ; a bro- 
ken and contrite heart , O God, thou wilt not despise. 
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right 
spirit within me." The sin-offering, then, was in itself 
no expiation. It left the matter just where it was be- 
fore. God looketh only at the heart ; a broken and a 
contrite heart is the only sin-offei*ing. The outward 
offering signifies this, or it is nothing, and of no avail. 
Penitence, David assures us, is as accceptable without 
the offering as it is with it. But, if this be so, it may 
be inquired, what was the use of sacrifices, and why 
were they instituted ? I answer, that they were a form 
of divine worship calculated for a rude and barbarous 
age. They have no necessary connection with religion, 
as we see that enlightened men may be as religious 
without them as they ever were with them. They 
were universal among the heathen, before they were 
adopted by the Jews. They were adopted by Moses, 
for the reason that man could not step the whole dis- 
tance from idolatry to the spirituality of Christianity at 
one stride. Moses merely made the change of direct- 
ing sacrificial worship from the false gods of the hea- 
then to the true Jehovah. Sacrifices were used for 
various religious purposes. They were used to ex- 
press gratitude. A portion of the first fruits were 



264 THE ATONEMENT. 

offered to God, to acknowledge that he was the giver 
of them. Sacrifices were offered as mere acts of stated 
worship, as in the morning and evening sacrifice for 
the whole nation, at the hour of morning and evening 
prayer, and by neighbourhoods, at the new moons, and 
on great occasions, merely as acts of acknowledgment 
of the superintending providence of God. They were 
offered in token of penitence for sin, as if to propitiate 
an offended Deity. When such offerings, under the 
Mosaic economy, received the sanction of God, they 
became the symbol and pledge, not only of man's pen- 
itence, but God's mercy. By their institution God 
pledges himself to forgive the penitent. Once a year 
there was appointed a general sin-offering. The par- 
ties represented in it were, God on the one hand r and 
the children of Israel on the other. And it was signi- 
fied in this way. The offering was considered to be 
made by the whole people, through their high priest. 
The most sacred thing in their temple was the ark, and 
it was placed in the inmost recess of the temple. God, 
therefore, was represented as having his seat upon the 
ark. To represent the part which the Deity had in the 
general expiation, the priest went into the holiest of ho- 
lies, and sprinkled some of the blood of the sacrifice 
upon the lid of the ark, w 7 hich was called, from this 
circumstance, the mercy-seat. But, after all, this cere- 
mony was only symbolical. It had no intrinsic efficacy. 
That day was likewise made a day of humiliation and 
penitence. "It shall be a sabbath of rest to you, and 
ye shall afflict your souls by a statute forever." If 
there were no penitence in the people, there would have 



THE ATONEMENT. 265 

been no meaning in the sacrifice, and it would have 
been altogether useless. 

Sacrifices were likewise made in ratification of trea- 
ties and covenants. It w r as so as early as the days of 
Abraham. God, at an early period, promised to give 
him the land of Canaan. In token of this promise, 
which is called a covenant, Moses is directed to take 
several animals, and sacrifice them. He divided them, 
and placed the parts over against each other. cc Andit 
came to pass, that when the sun went down and it was 
dark, behold, a smoking furnace and a burning lamp 
passed between those pieces. In that same day the 
Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy 
seed will I give this land." So after giving the law on 
Sinai, the Israelites made a covenant with God to keep 
the law, by sacrifice. " And Moses came and told the 
people all the w T ords of the Lord, and all the judgments ; 
and all the people answered w 7 ith one voice, and said, 
All the words, which the Lord hath said, we will do. 
And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose 
up early in the morning and builded an altar under the 
hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of 
Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Is- 
rael, which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace 
offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half 
of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood 
he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book and 
read in the audience of the people, and they said : All 
that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient. 
And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the peo- 
ple and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant which 
23 



266 THE ATONEMENT. 

the Lord hath made with you concerning all these 
words." Such, then, were the principal purposes of 
sacrifices. 

Now, after this explanation of the purposes of sacri- 
fices, can we say that the death of Christ was a literal 
sacrifice in any sense ? If so, it was a human sacrifice ; 
and nothing can be more shocking than the idea of God's 
being propitiated by a human sacrifice. What are the 
conditions of a sacrifice? It must be offered by men to 
God. It must be such a one as it is lawful for man to 
make, and consistent for God to receive. If Christ's 
death was a sacrifice, then a murder may be a sacrifice. 
A sacrifice must be offered by some party or parties. 
Was it the soldiers, was it Pontius Pilate, or the Jewish 
high priest ? Can a man be transformed into an altar ? 
But it is said that Christ offered himself. If he did, lit- 
erally , then he must have been guilty of his own death. 
Paul says of himself, when about to die in the cause of 
the Gospel : u I am now ready to be offered, and the 
time of my departure is at hand." On another occa- 
sion, u If I be offered up on the sawifice and service of 
your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all." No man 
supposes Paul to have spoken literally. Nor is it ne- 
cessary to suppose that Christ was a literal sacrifice.. 

What exposition is left of the sacrificial language of 
the New Testament, when applied to Christ ? It was 
not a sacrifice, but it was like a sacrifice, and therefore it 
is called a sacrifice. There was a resemblance between 
the death of Christ and the expiatory sacrifices, because 
they were both the emblems of the mercy of God. 
Christ came as the ambassador of God's mercy, not on 



THE ATONEMENT. 267 

the ground of his own future sufferings, but the sponta- 
neous, unbought mercy of God. His mission originated 
in the Divine mercy. u God so loved the world, that 
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." In 
this embassy of mercy, he sacrificed his life. We have 
remission of sins through him, not because he purchased 
it, but because through him we have repentance, without 
which remission is impossible. As in the Old Testa- 
ment the sacrifices w-ere the symbol of the divine clem- 
ency, so is Christ under the New, and in so far, may be 
said to answer the same end, in the promotion of holi- 
ness and religion. As the annual sacrifice, in w 7 hich 
the high priest went into the holy of holies, was a per- 
petual remembrance of the sinfulness of men, and of the 
readiness of God to forgive the penitent, (but not without 
their penitence, for that day was set apart as a day to 
afflict their souls, and mourn for their sins,) so the death 
of Christ upon the cross, is a perpetual memorial of the 
sinfulness of mankind, inasmuch as he died to bring 
them to repentance, and to assure them of the Divine 
mercy. In neither case are either of them, in them- 
selves, of the least avail, without penitence and reforma- 
tion on the part of man. 

There is a resemblance between the death of Christ 
and the sacrifices of ratification, such as that of which I 
read to you from the account which is given of the cove- 
nant made between the children of Israel and Jehovah, 
in which they stipulated that they w T ould keep the law. 
When Christ had given the new law, and was about to 
depart out of the world, he compared his blood, that was 



268 THE ATONEMENT. 

to be shed upon the cross, to the blood of the sacrifice, 
with which Moses ratified the Jewish law, by sprinkling 
it on the people and on the altar of God. In instituting 
the Supper, Christ uses the remarkable expression, 
" This is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed 
for many, for the remission of sins." As Moses had 
given a law to the Israelites, so had Christ given a law 
to the whole world, which is intimated in the phrase, 
u shed for many." The Mosaic law contained provis- 
ion for the remission of sin, at least for its ceremonial 
remission, in which the mercy of God was symbolized 
and assumed in the sin-offerings ; so now, though sacri- 
fices were done away, yet the death of Christ might be 
considered as a perpetual memorial of the same thing. 
Besides, there is an evident allusion, in this form of 
words, to the most explicit prophecy there is in the old 
dispensation or the new. " Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not 
according to the covenant which I made with their fa- 
thers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring 
them out of the land of Egypt. But this is the cove- 
nant that I will make with the house of Israel. After 
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their 
inward parts, and lorite it in their hearts, and will be 
their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall 
no more teach every man his neighbour, and every man 
his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all 
know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of 
them ; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will re- 
member their sin no more." This is the new and uni- 



THE ATONEMENT. 269 

versal covenant, which Christ ratified with his blood, 
containing the promise of the pardon of sin ; but the 
condition of the pardon of sin, in this and all other cases, 
is a moral reformation. God's law must be received 
and obeyed. Such, then, is the connection of the death 
of Christ with the pardon of sin ; it does not directly 
procure it, nor could any sacrifice, under any circum- 
stances, but is instrumental in procuring that moral re- 
novation, of which forgiveness of sins is the necessary 
consequence. 

Nor is the forgiveness of sins of much consequence, 
without moral renovation. The parent stands ready to 
pardon his repentant son, if he will return to the path of 
his duty. Society is sufficiently merciful to forgive the 
whole mass of the vicious who darken the moral atmos- 
phere of this world. But the difficulty does not lie here. 
It lies in producing in them such a moral change as 
shall make forgiveness for the past of any avail. Ac- 
cordingly, but a small part of the work of Christ con- 
sisted in his death ; and had he not been a teacher, his 
death would have accomplished nothing for the salva- 
tion of man. The only salvation for man is, to be in- 
wardly regenerated ; that, Christ's death, without his 
doctrines, could not have effected. cc The flesh," says 
he, " profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto 
you, they are spirit and they are life." Such is the 
general representation of the New Testament. Christ 
died to give efficacy to his doctrines, and thus to pro- 
mote our spiritual improvement. " Forasmuch as ye 
know that ye were not redeemed by corruptible things, 
such as silver and gold, from your vain conversation re- 
23* 



270 THE ATONEMENT. 

ceived by tradition from your fathers, but with the pre- 
cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
without spot." The moral purpose of Christ's death is 
still more explicitly stated in another place. c c Who gave 
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, 
and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good 
ivorks." It is not so much remission, as moral renova- 
tion, from which remission, with a merciful God, fol- 
lows of course, that was the purpose of his mission. 

Let us now sum up the results to which we have been 
led by this discussion. The first is, that the doctrine of 
the Trinity has no connection with the Atonement. 
The second is, that sacrifices have no intrinsic efficacy 
to take away sin, but were only symbolic of penitence 
on the part of man, and mercy on the part of God. 
The third is, that the death of Christ was not a literal 
sacrifice in any sense. The fourth is, that it is called a 
sacrifice from its moral effect upon the world, answers 
the same symbolic purpose, and in as far as it is effica- 
cious in the moral regeneration of the world, it does 
what sacrifices could not do, reconciles an offending 
world to God. 



LECTURE XII. 



WHAT IS SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST ? 
ROMANS, X. 9. 

IF THOU SHALT CONFESS WITH THY MOUTH THE LORD JESUS, AND SHALT 
EELIEVE IN THY HEART THAT GOD HATH RAISED HIM PROM THE DEAD, 
THOU SHALT BE SAVED. 

It is the object of this lecture to examine the nature 
of a saving faith in Christ. Salvation is said in the 
New Testament to be the consequence of faith in 
Christ. Now what was, and what is the nature of this 
faith, — what must we believe concerning Christ in order 
to be saved ? This is a most interesting topic, for it is 
the point where the doctrine of the Trinity passes over 
from a speculative into a practical doctrine. It is often 
said of us, and to us, that we are infidels ; that we do 
not believe in Christ, and he who does not believe in 
Christ is an infidel, and is lost ; has no hope of salva- 
tion. We bow with all meekness to this sweeping 
condemnation, knowing that it is of little consequence 
to be judged by man's judgment. From that judgment 
we appeal to the Scriptures. We profess to believe 
in Christ, and according to the best of our judgments, 
we do believe in him. But to believe in Christ, we 
are told, is to believe that he is God. Not to believe 



272 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

that he is God, is to reject him and to be an infidel. 
We say that a saving faith in Christ has no relation to 
his nature, but only to the fact that God sent him, that 
all he taught has the authority of God, confirmed by 
the fact that God raised him from the dead. The 
whole question turns on the true definition of faith in 
Christ. The Trinitarian affirms that it is to believe 
that Christ was God ; the Unitarian, that he was sent by 
God. I have already, I hope, shown to your satisfac- 
tion, that the Scriptures do not represent him to have 
been God. To be consistent with themselves, they 
cannot represent it to be necessary to believe that he 
was God. I shall therefore go over the principal pas- 
sages which define faith in Christ, and from them gather 
what it was. I shall then show how that faith is suffi- 
cient for salvation. I shall first bring forward what he 
said of himself, and then what his Apostles said of 
him. . 

There is one passage, which, if it stood alone, would 
be almost enough to settle this matter, in Christ's last 
prayer with his disciples. u This is life eternal, that 
they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom thou hast sent." To know, in this con- 
nection, means to recognize, to believe in, and likewise 
to live in such a manner as to be answerable to their 
faith. Now if a man believes the Father to be the 
only true God, he cannot believe Jesus Christ to be 
God at all. He is shut out of Deity by the very terms 
of the proposition. Nor is it, according to the articles 
of this creed, necessary to believe that he was God. 
Eternal life did not depend on believing that he was 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 273 

God, but that God had sent him ; the words are, " Jesus 
Christ whom thou hast sent." It is necessary only to 
believe that God had sent him. These are the very 
fundamental articles of the Unitarian faith. We believe 
in God, as the only true God, and in Jesus Christ, as 
the sent of God. Can it be, then, that we are infidels, 
when we believe precisely what Jesus Christ told us 
that it is eternal life to believe ? 

What it was to believe in Christ, we further learn 
from the language of Christ at the grave of Lazarus. 
It was from no motive of private friendship, that he dis- 
turbed the sleep of his departed associate, nor that he 
might gladden again the hospitable home of Mary and 
Martha. It was to promote the great objects of his 
religion, that he might awaken the faith of the world, 
and fix it on himself. Without faith in him, he could 
do the world no good. And that very miracle did pro- 
duce faith in him in many minds. So much was this 
miracle the occasion of faith in Jesus, that when it was 
announced to the Rulers at Jerusalem, a council was 
immediately called. w Then gathered the chief priests 
and Pharisees a council, and said, What do we, for 
this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus 
alone, all men will believe on him." u They con- 
sulted also that they might put Lazarus to death, be- 
cause that by reason of him many of the Jews went 
away and believed on Jesus." This miracle indeed 
was the crisis of Christ's ministry, and as far as w r e can 
judge, was the immediate occasion of his death. It 
caused such an outburst of popular enthusiasm, that it 
determined the Jewish council to take strong, speedy, 



274 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

and effectual measures to destroy him. Jesus and his 
disciples were then on their way to Jerusalem, to keep 
the last passover, and the miracle was performed at 
Bethany, only a short distance from the city. The 
multitudes, who were already at Jerusalem, hearing of 
this most impressive miracle, wrought in the neighbour- 
hood, went forth to meet him, with branches of palm- 
trees, and conducted him to the city in triumphal pro- 
cession. From this moment the council determined 
on his death. What, then, did Jesus himself consider 
this miracle to prove, and what did they believe who 
were convinced by it ? Was it that be was God, the 
supreme Ruler of the Universe, and therefore able of 
his own power to raise the dead ? By no means. 
Jesus took particular care to be understood upon this 
occasion. He uttered a short prayer, for the purpose 
of informing the spectators who wrought the miracle, 
and what it was wrought for. " And Jesus lifted up 
his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast 
heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always. 
But because of the people which stood by, I said it, 
that they may believe that thou hast sent me." Can 
any one believe that Jesus, at that solemn hour, could 
have said anything calculated to mislead the witnesses 
of that stupendous miracle, and to misrepresent his na- 
ture and his relation to God ? If he had been God, 
and wrought that miracle by his own power, and to 
prove that he was God, was he not bound in candor to 
have said so ? If it is necessary for his followers to 
believe that he is God, in order to be saved, how could 
he make this miracle bear upon the point that God had 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 275 

sent him, u that they may believe that thou hast sent 
me? " 

Jesus, in his last prayer with his disciples, more 
than once expresses the sentiment, that they were in a 
state of salvation. " None of them is lost, but the son 
of perdition." It is important for us to ascertain, for 
the purpose of our present argument, what he consid- 
ered the instrument of their salvation. It was by faith 
in him. But by what species of faith ? What faith in 
him saved them ? If Jesus were the Almighty, his 
immediate disciples must have known it, if any persons. 
It is hardly a supposable case, that he should have 
failed to communicate to them so important a truth, as 
that he was their God, as well as teacher and com- 
panion. But if Christ's last prayer with them repre- 
sents things truly, they did not believe this, nor were 
affected by his instructions, because he was God, but 
simply because God had sent him. u I have mani- 
fested thy name unto the men, which thou gavest me 
out of the world. Thine they were, and thou gavest them 
me, and they have kept thy word. Now T they have 
known, that all things whatsoever thou hast given me 
are of thee. For I have given them the words which 
thou hast given me : and they have received them ; and 
have known surely that I came out from thee, and they 
have believed that thou didst send me." Now is it at 
all difficult to gather from this language the species of 
faith which the disciples had cherished in their Master, 
and which had been the means of saving them ? They 
believed that his doctrines were from God. u They 
have known that all things, whatsoever thou hast given 



276 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

me, are of thee, for I have given them the words which 
thou gavest me, and they have received them," that is, 
as the words of God. In other words, they believed 
that he was divinely inspired, and did not teach doc- 
trines of his own invention ; that he was sent to teach 
what he did teach, and did not come among them 
feigning a mission which he had never received ; u and 
have known surely that I came out from thee, and have 
believed that thou didst send me." Here, then, is a 
saving faith, which was exercised by eleven out of 
twelve of his first disciples, with the reason why it was 
a saving faith. And was it a belief in him as God ? 
Does such an idea seem to have entered into their 
minds ? Is such an idea alluded to in his prayer ? I 
see not a trace of it, but everything to contradict it. 
They had kept Christ's words because they believed, 
not that he was God, but had derived them from God. 
They believed in him, not as God, but as the sent of 
God. 

Another passage, which is very strong on this point, 
is found in Christ's conversation with the Jews imme- 
diately after the healing of the impotent man at the 
pool of Bethesda. Those who had faith in him, he 
pronounces to have passed from death to life. But 
what was that faith ? Was it faith in him as God ? 
By no means. It was faith in God through /iim, or 
rather faith in his word, or doctrine, as coming from 
God. " Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth 
my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath ever- 
lasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but 
is passed from death unto life." To hear Christ's 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 277 

word, and to believe in him who hath sent him," is 
only another form of expression for this meaning ; u He 
who hears my doctrine, and believes that I have re- 
ceived it from God, hath everlasting life." Here, then, 
salvation is connected as before with believing, not that 
Christ is God, but that he is the sent of God. His 
nature is left out of the question. 

There was another occasion upon which he expressed 
the same meaning, in terms still more explicit. It was 
after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The multi- 
tude which followed him expressed their faith by cry- 
ing, " Hosanna, blessed is the Son of David, that 
cometh in the name of the Lord." When he arrived at 
Jerusalem, the evangelist relates, u Many among the 
chief rulers believed on him, but because of the Phari- 
sees they did not confess him, lest they should be put 
out of the synagogue ; for they loved the praise of 
men more than the praise of God." Their faith, 
therefore, was of a worldly character. They believed 
him to be the Messiah, but a worldly one. Jesus, 
therefore, thought it a proper occasion to explain what 
faith in him meant. He tells them that from him per- 
sonally they have nothing to expect ; that belief in 
him personally meant nothing, except as he was sent 
of God, and in no other capacity than as a religious 
teacher and guide ; that those who obeyed God, speak- 
ing through him, would obtain life everlasting. " Jesus 
answered and said, He that believeth on me, believeth 
not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth 
me, seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into 
the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not 
24 



278 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

walk in darkness." The belief here spoken of, is the 
belief in him as a guide ; not that he shone by a light 
which originated in him, but by one which shone through 
him from God. As the rewards which seem to come 
from embracing him as a guide, were not to come from 
him personally, as the Jews generally expected, so he 
says the punishments which were to follow the rejection 
of him, were not to be personal from him, but were to 
flow from the very fact that they disobeyed the word of 
God, which is the law of the universe, and which if 
any one breaks he must surely suffer. " And if any 
man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not." 
I am not to be the temporal king, which you Jews ex- 
pect, "for I came not to judge the world, but to save 
the world." "He that rejecteth me and receiveth 
not my words." x\nd here, by the way, is another 
confirmation of the view which we are giving. Reject- 
ing Christ is here defined ; and defined to be, not refus- 
ing to believe that he is God, or any thing else, person- 
ally, but to be refusing to believe his words, that they 
are true and came from God. " He that rejecteth me, 
and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; 
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him 
at the last day. For I have not spoken of myself, but 
the Father which hath sent me, he gave me a com- 
mandment what I should say and what I should speak ; 
and I know that his commandment is life everlasting." 
What can be plainer than all this to show, that to be- 
lieve in Jesus Christ during his ministry, and to obtain 
eternal life by believing, had nothing to do with his 
nature ? To believe in him, was to believe in God 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 279 

who sent him, or that God did send him. The pur- 
pose for which he was sent, was to teach. "I am 
come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth 
on me should not walk in darkness." To believe on 
him was to believe on him as a teacher ; and the advan- 
tage to be derived from believing on him was to have a 
guide, or a light, so as not to walk in darkness. To 
refuse to believe on him as a teacher, is to refuse the 
only kind of faith that is necessary to repose in him. 
w If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge 
him not, for I came not to judge the world but to save 
the world." To reject him as a teacher is to reject 
him altogether. " He that rejecteth me and receiveth 
not my words, hath one that judgeth him ; the word that 
I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last 
day." He himself is nothing. His doctrine is every- 
thing. His doctrines are certain of fulfilment, because 
he has received them from God. " For I have not 
spoken of myself ; but the Father which sent me, he 
gave me a commandment what I should say and what I 
should speak." Obedience to God in itself necessa- 
rily secures eternal happiness. u And I know that his 
commandment is life everlasting." 

I shall now quote a passage to show upon what point 
Christ considered his miracles in general to bear. He 
offered them as reasons why men should believe on 
him ; but should believe him to be what ? According 
to the Trinitarian hypothesis, to be God. If we do 
not believe that he is God, we are infidels. But what 
says the Saviour himself? " But I have greater wit- 
ness than that of John : for the works which the 



280 SAYING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I 
do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." 
" And ye have not his word abiding in you, for whom 
he hath sent, him ye believe not." Now if Christ's 
miracles proved him to be this or that by nature, was 
he not bound to tell his disciples so ? If it was vital 
to their faith in him to believe him to be God, or a 
Person of the Trinity, would he have said that it was 
only necessary for them to believe him only to be the 
sent of God ? 

What I have already said will serve to explain an- 
other formula of faith in the New Testament. To 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God, 
is often insisted on in the writings of the Apostles as 
vital to salvation. John says of his Gospel, in a sen- 
tence near its close, that he wrote it to give an account 
of a selection of Christ's miracles, which proved him 
to be the Messiah. u And many other signs truly did 
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which, are not 
written in this book. But these are written that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; 
and that believing, ye might have life through his name." 
When Christ asked the disciples whom they took him 
to be, Peter answers, u Thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the living God." This is said by Matthew. Luke 
says that his declaration was, " Thou art the Christ of 
God." Mark simply, " Thou art the Christ." The 
different evangelists, in expressing the same sense, 
have given us different words, thereby showing us that 
they are all synonymous. These were expressions 
which were in use before he came, and had no refer- 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 281 

ence to his nature whatever. To satisfy ourselves of 
this, it is only necessary to observe the conversation of 
certain Jews at the commencement of his ministry. It 
shows that the title, u Son of God," was not inconsist- 
ent with Jesus being the son of Joseph, and likewise 
what it was to believe in Christ at that early day. 
" Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him ; We 
have found him of whom Moses in the law and the 
prophets did icrite, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of 
Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can any good 
thing come out of Nazareth ? Philip said unto him, 
Come and see. And Jesus saw Nathanael coming to 
him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in 
whom is no guile. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence 
knowest thou me ? Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the 
fig-tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said unto 
him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the 
king of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Because I said unto thee I saw thee under the fig-tree, 
believest thou ? Thou shall see greater things than 
these." The point of this quotation is to show that 
Jesus recognizes the faith which Nathanael owns in him 
as the true faith. He had found him, of whom Moses 
in the law and the prophets did write, in Jesus of Naz- 
areth, the son of Joseph. Entertaining that opinion 
of his origin, he calls him the u Son of God," and 
" king of Israel," — that is, the Messiah. These phrases 
then can have no reference to his nature whatever, and 
must be wholly official. 

The great point insisted on in the New Testament, 
24* 



282 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

the great argument for faith in Christ, is his resurrection, 
Paul rests the whole cause of Christianity on this single 
fact. " Moreover, brethren," says he, " I declare 
unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which 
also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; by which 
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory that which I 
preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also 
received, how that Christ died for our sins, according 
to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he 
rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. 
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, 
and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false 
witnesses of God, because we have testified of God, 
that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so 
be that the dead rise not." What did the Apostle 
consider the resurrection to prove with respect to 
Christ ? That he was God ? That could not be, 
because he says that the Apostles testified of God that 
he raised up Christ. Christ cannot be God, and be 
raised from the dead by God. But what connexion 
has the resurrection of Christ with the natural immor- 
tality of man, or the purpose of God of raising man to 
another life ? In order to ascertain this, it is only ne- 
cessary to suppose that he had taught nothing, that he 
had assumed no character as the sent of God. In that 
case, it would have stood out as a single, isolated fact, 
with no other bearing than this, — that man is capable of 
immortality ; but as others are not raised in the same 
way, it would have made him the exception instead of 
the rule, and, of course, as he was selected and all 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 283 

others left, that they were still to sleep on in eternal 
unconsciousness. But such was not the fact. He had 
been a teacher, professing to have been sent by God. 
In the name of God he had commanded men to repent, 
he had given them a perfect rule of life, and in himself 
a perfect model of humanity. He had promised im- 
mortality to his followers, and taught that man is im- 
mortal. " I am the resurrection and the life," he had 
said. cc Whosoever liveth and belie veth in me, though 
he were dead yet shall he live." The resurrection of 
Christ, under these circumstances, was not an isolated 
fact. It had a bearing on all he had taught. It was 
a seal, that all he had taught in the name of God was 
true, for God would not have raised an impostor from 
the dead, nor by raising Christ given sanction to doc- 
trines which were not true. Christ himself expressed 
the bearing of his resurrection upon his mission in one 
of his interviews with his disciples after that event. 
u And he said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead 
the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, 
beginning at Jerusalem, and ye are witnesses of these 
things." Accordingly, the first thing the Apostles did, 
was to bear witness to his resurrection ; and they 
founded on this fact his claim to the faith and obedience 
of the world. Peter, in his speech to Cornelius and 
his friends, states the authority upon which he comes 
to preach to him the Gospel ; and it is, that God had 
raised Christ, in whose name he preached, from the 
dead. "Him hath God raised up, and showed him 



284 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

openly, not unto all the people, but unto witnesses, 
chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and 
drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he 
commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify 
that it is he, which is ordained to be the Judge of quick 
and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that, 
through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall 
receive remission of sins." 

I trust it is unnecessary to make any further quota- 
tions from the Scriptures, to show that the belief which 
is represented in the New Testament to have been 
cherished in Christ, and to have been sufficient for sal- 
vation, had nothing at all to do with his nature. It em- 
braced only his official relations to God and to men, 
and his official relation was proved by his resurrection, 
according to the words of the Apostle Peter. " Blessed 
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, 
according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us to a 
lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
dead." His resurrection is the foundation of our hope, 
because it confirmed his promises to his followers. 
Faith in him is faith in God through him. u He that 
believeth in me, believeth not in me, but on him who 
hath sent me." He believes that God will do all things 
which he has promised through Christ ; as it is ex- 
pressed by Peter in another part of the same epistle, 
from which we have just quoted : " Who by him do be- 
lieve in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave 
him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God." 
Such are the uniform declarations of Scripture, and 
such is the meaning of that passage which I quoted at 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST, 285 

the commencement of this lecture. " If thou shalt 
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be- 
lieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved." Such, then, was and is 
a saving faith in Christ. I shall proceed to show that 
this agrees with facts and the nature of the case. The 
spiritual salvation of Christians may be illustrated by the 
temporal salvation which the first believers experienced 
through Christ. Jesus warned his followers that Jeru- 
salem was soon to be destroyed, and charged them as 
soon as they should see Jerusalem encompassed with 
armies, they should flee to the mountains, and were not 
to turn back and take their clothes. All who believed 
in Christ did so, and ecclesiastical historians tell us that 
when Jerusalem was taken there was not a single Chris- 
tian within its walls. They all fled to a small town by 
the name of Pella, beyond the Jordan, where the Jeru- 
salem Church flourished for many ages. They were 
saved by their faith, not the believing Christ to be this 
or that by nature, but by believing that he was inspired 
to foretell the truth. And no matter if they had thought 
him to be Jehovah himself, their faith would have 
profited them nothing, unless it had induced them to do 
what he had commanded. 

Just so it is with faith in a more enlarged, spiritual 
sense. Men can be saved by faith, only so far as they 
are led by it to act, as far as it influences their conduct. 
Men can be saved by faith in Christ only so far as it 
leads them to do his commandments. No matter if a 
man believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the Infinite 



286 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 



Jehovah, if he does nothing in consequence of that 
faith, it cannot save him. No matter if he believes 
in an infinite atonement, made by an infinite being, his 
sins cannot be forgiven, unless he repents and forsakes 
them. A man can be saved from sin by Christ, only so 
far as he is persuaded by him to abandon sin. And he 
who is led to abandon sin, and lead a holy and religious 
life by his faith in Christ, has a saving faith in him, 
whatever he may think of his nature. 

The relation in which Christ stands to us and God, 
is that of Mediator. He comes to reconcile us to God, 
on the condition of repentance and obedience. Our 
appropriate faith in him, then, is as Mediator. And it 
is a sufficient faith, the only faith which corresponds to 
facts. If I believe in him as that God, between whom 
and me he mediates, I only introduce confusion into my 
religious ideas, without adding any authority to his mes- 
sage. Jesus is our Teacher, and our appropriate faith 
in him is as our Teacher. If we insist on believing 
that he is God, we add nothing to the force of his in- 
structions, because he professes to have received his 
doctrines from God. We introduce confusion into 
our own ideas, by making him to be God, and to de- 
rive his doctrines from God at the same time. The 
only way in which we can be benefitted by our faith in 
him as a Teacher, is to be persuaded to do his com- 
mandments. We gain nothing by substituting Christ 
in the place of God. We displace God, and lose the 
Mediator. We want God in the place of God, and we 
want the Mediator in the place of the Mediator. Be- 



SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 287 

sides, there is no magic in any species of faith. It will 
produce effects according to its nature. The faith of 
Christians is not on the nature of Christ, for that is not 
a practical truth, let him be what he might ; it is on 
what he taught ; not what he is, but what they are, and 
may be, and must become. To have a saving faith in 
Christ, is not to believe him to be this or that, but to 
believe in the great practical truths which he taught. 
To believe in Christ, is to believe in God ; not because 
he was God, but because he taught us the most glori- 
ous truths concerning God ; that he is our Father, and 
loves us with a parent's affection ; that he hears our 
prayers and grants our requests ; that he is ready to par- 
don us if we are penitent, to aid us in every good en- 
deavour. He has taught in himself what is the true end 
and greatness of our being. His sermon on the mount 
is an epitome of all human duty. And he has told us 
that " he who heareth these sayings, and doeth them, 
buildeth his house upon a rock ;" his hope shall never 
fail. If we have faith in him to do as he has command- 
ed us, we are saved. To believe in Christ is to believe 
in immortality, for he taught it, and proved it by rising 
from the dead himself. The faith in immortality is the 
most ennobling that can be cherished by the human 
mind. The anticipation of a resurrection from the 
dead, raises man from a death of sin to a life of holi- 
ness. He who believes in the divine mission of Christ, 
believes in retribution, for he has so taught us : Ct They 
who have done good shall rise to the resurrection of 
life, and they who have done evil to the resurrection of 



288 SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST. 

condemnation. This is the highest motive that can be 
offered us to influence our conduct. He who believes 
these great truths, and lives according to them, is 
saved, exercises a saving faith in Christ ; whatever he 
may think of his original nature, " he is passed from 
death unto life." 



LECTURE XIII. 

ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

I. CORINTHIANS, XV. 24, 25, 26. 

THEN COMETH THE END, WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM 
TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER ; WHEN HE SHALL HAVE PUT DOWN ALL RULE 
AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER. FOR HE MUST REIGN TILL HE HATH PUT 
ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET. THE LAST ENEMY THAT SHALL BE DESTROY- 
ED IS DEATH. 

In the course of lectures which I have given you, in 
which I have quoted and explained most of the texts in 
the Bible which relate to the subject, I trust I have 
made it manifest that the doctrine of the Trinity is not 
taught in the Scriptures ; that God is one in every 
sense ; one person, one agent, one essence ; that Christ 
is one, one person, one nature, derived and subordinate, 
and deriving all that he was, from God. This is the 
conviction, I trust, I have produced or strengthened in 
the minds of those who have heard me. Still, I am 
aware, that there is a feeling in many minds that all is 
not explained. There is a magnificence of language 
used in the New Testament, when speaking of Christ, 
which to them does not seem appropriate to Jesus of 
Nazareth, in any imaginable state of glorification. It 
may be thought, that, after giving the explanations I have 
25 



290 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

given, I am bound to account for this magnificence of 
language. Then there is the fact, that the doctrine of 
the Trinity is actually in the world, and has been, in va- 
rious forms, since the fourth century after Christ. How 
could it have become an article of faith, if it were not 
the original doctrine of the Church, the primitive teach- 
ing of the Apostles ? I shall endeavor, so far as the 
limits of a single lecture will permit me, to answer these 
two inquiries. 

In the first place, Why is Christ represented as so im- 
portant a personage in the history of the world ? Why 
is he represented as sustaining so near a relation to God ? 
Why is he called the Son of God ? Why is he repre- 
sented as being u exalted to the right hand of God," as 
having power and authority, as ruling the world, as rais- 
ing the dead, as judging mankind, as rewarding the 
righteous, and punishing the wicked ? Why do the 
Apostles represent him as an actual agent in the plant- 
ing and propagation of his religion ? Why do they as- 
sociate him with God in their salutations to Christians : 
cc Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father, and 
from the Lord Jesus Christ ? " In answering these 
questions, I shall give you a key for the explanation of 
all the Messianic language of the New Testament. 

In the first place, with respect to the great impor- 
tance attached to the advent of Christ. All who believe 
in divine revelation at all, believe that the Christian dis- 
pensation was a subject of a divine purpose from the 
very beginning of time ; that the patriarchal dispensation 
was preparatory to the Mosaic, and the Mosaic to the 
Christian. The Christian was to complete the series, 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



291 



because it was perfect, and calculated to be a universal 
religion. The interest, then, of the ages both before 
and after Christ, centered in him. To him preceding 
ages looked forward, and to him succeeding ages have 
looked back. Christ is represented, therefore, as ex- 
citing as deep an interest in the divine mind, as he did 
in the regards of men. He is spoken of as being reveal- 
ed, as if as it were that the Almighty had him already 
created to send into the world, when the time should 
come. Hence the language of Peter, concerning him : 
u Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of 
the world, but was manifested in these last times for 
you. 5 ' So Christians are said to have been u chosen in 
Christ before the foundation of the world." Paul, in 
his second Epistle to Timothy, speaks of the same sub- 
ject in the same way : u Who hath saved us, and called 
us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but 
according to his own purpose and grace, ivhich was 
given us in Jesus Christ before the world began , but is 
now made manifest by the appearing of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath 
brought life and immortality to light through the Gos- 
pel." In the same sense Jesus is to be supposed to 
have spoken when he said : u Father, I will that they 
also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, 
that they may behold rny glory which thou hast given 
me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 
toorld." In still stronger language, he said on another 
occasion : u Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
day, and he saw it and was glad. " " Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, before Abraham was, I am he." All these 



292 OlilGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

expressions, I believe, are intended to express the same 
idea, the plan of Providence, adopted from the begin- 
ning of the world, and the important part that Jesus, as 
the Messiah, was to act in it. The Jews took the 
greatest pride in their descent from Abraham. Jesus 
means to let them know that he was a much more im- 
portant person in the scheme of Providence, than their 
great progenitor ; that he had a place in the divine 
counsels before Abraham, and Abraham looked forward 
to him as his superior. 

But why should Jesus, as the Messiah, be called " the 
Son of God," and made so near the Deity in power 
and dignity, be said " to be exalted to his right hand," 
&c. ? All this phraseology is derived from the peculiar 
lorm of Mosaic ceremony, and the constitution of the 
Jewish Commonwealth. It was a Theocracy, that is, 
a form of government which had God for its head. God 
was its Lawgiver and King, and in a manner, by his 
prophets, administered the government during the whole 
series of their legitimate kings, and indeed during their 
national independence. When they at length insisted 
on having a king, he was not chosen by the people, but 
by God, He was not crowned by the people, but he 
was anointed by GW, through the prophet Samuel, and 
therefore was called the Lord's anointed. Now the 
literal meaning of Messiah, is Anointed. So. in the 
original, both Saul and David are called Jehovah's Mes- 
siah. When Samuel went into the family of Jesse, to 
anoint a king among his sons, he caused Jesse's sons to 
pass before him ; and when he saw Eliab, the first-born, 
he said, u Surely the Lord's Messiah is before him." 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 293 

David said of Saul, when he found him asleep in a cave, 
" God forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against 
the Lord's Messiah." 

These circumstances explain the peculiar phraseology 
of the second Psalm, which had such an important influ- 
ence in shaping the language of the New Testament. 
In that Psalm, God, as the supreme King of Israel, is 
represented as having elevated David (or some other 
of the kings of Israel) to be his own associate in the 
Empire, as an earthly monarch adopts his son as a par- 
ticipant in the administration. To sit at the right hand 
of a monarch was the highest honor, and the sign of be- 
ing exalted to the highest station of dignity and power 
under him. We have, at this period of the world, a 
phrase of similar import. To be one's u right hand 
man," means to be entrusted with power, and to be em- 
ployed in the most important affairs. Zion was the 
chief mountain in Jerusalem, which David fortified, and 
made the citadel of his kingdom. Here God is re- 
presented as enthroning the king of his people, and 
promising to extend his dominion beyond the bounds of 
Palestine, and advises the neighbouring kings to submit 
peaceably to his dominion ; to signify their allegiance by 
kissing their superior, the usual sign of veneration and 
acknowledgment of authority in the East. " Why do 
the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing ? 
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers 
take counsel together against the Lord and against his 
Anointed," literally, his Messiah, "saying, let us break 
their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall 
25* 



294 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them 
in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet 
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will 
declare the decree ; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, 
and I shall give thee the heathen for an inheritance, and 
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt 
dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel. Be wise now, 
therefore, O ye kings ; be instructed, ye judges of the 
earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trem- 
bling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish 
from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. 
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Such 
was the language of this Psalm, growing out of the Jew- 
ish Theocracy ; such was the language applied to one of 
their Jewish kings, in consequence of the fact that he was 
considered to reign with, and under God, over the 
chosen people. There is another Psalm, of a similar 
import, the one hundred and tenth, composed in praise 
of David, or some one of the line of his successors. M Je- 
hovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, 
till I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall 
send the rod of thy strength out of Zion ; rule thou in 
the midst of thine enemies." From these two Pslams, 
most of the language of the New Testament was derived 
expressing the dignity of Christ as the Messiah ; and it 
was this language which led the converts from Paganism 
to exalt Christ into a Deity, or a Person of a Trinity. 
The Messiah was expected as the son and successor of 
David, as king of Israel, and, of course, son of God, as 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 295 

sharing his throne, he being the supreme King of Israel. 
This was precisely the meaning of the speech of Na- 
thanael : " Rabbi thou art the Son of God, thou art 
the king of Israel," while he supposed him the son of 
Joseph. These passages were the origin of those ex- 
pressions of Christ and his Apostles, which represent 
hira as being exalted to the right hand of God. For in- 
stance, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says : 
" Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from 
the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heav- 
enly places, far above all principality and power, and 
every name that is named, not only in this world, but in 
that which is to come." 

Carrying out these anticipations, at a later period of 
the Jewish Commonwealth, there are representations of 
the same character, which likewise had their influence in 
forming the language of the New Testament. " And 
in the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set 
up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the 
kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall 
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it 
shall stand forever." u I saw in the night visions, and 
behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they 
brought him near before him. And then was given unto 
him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, 
nations, and languages, should serve him ; his dominion 
is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which 
shall not be destroyed." 

These are the passages in the Old Testament, which 
exerted a controlling influence in forming the expecta- 



296 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

tions of the Jews concerning their Messiah. During 
the four hundred years which elapsed between the close 
of the Old Testament and the appearance of Christ, 
these expectations assumed continually a more and more 
definite form. He was to be a king, under the theo- 
cratic idea of a kingdom, that is, under God. Instead 
of ruling over Palestine, he was to extend his dominion 
over the whole earth. His dominion was not only to 
be universal, but complete. All things were to be 
brought under his dominion. He was to reign forever. 
How could he do this under the present order of things ? 
To meet this difficulty, they supposed that he would not 
only abide forever, but raise from the dead the saints of 
old, and make them participants of the blessings of his 
reign. 

When Christ came and assumed the office of the 
Messiah, he adopted all this phraseology in regard to 
himself. He called his dispensation u the kingdom of 
God," which he, under God, w T as to administer. When 
he commenced his ministry, he preached that u the 
kingdom of God had come." When he was arraigned 
before the Jewish council, for blasphemy, or profane- 
ness, in pretending to be the Messiah, " And the High 
Priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the 
living God, that thou tell me whether thou be the Christ, 
the Son of God, Jesus saith unto him, I am. And 
moreover from this time ye shall see the Son of man 
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven." Here you perceive, that both the 
high priest and Jesus quote the Messianic language of 
the Old Testament ; one in asking him if he was the 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



297 



Messiah, and the other in claiming to be the Messiah. 
And it is remarkable to see the meaning which Jesus 
puts upon the highly figurative language of the Old Testa- 
ment. " I am the Son of God, and ye shall see that I 
am the Son of God, because ye shall see me , from this 
moment, sitting on the right hand of God, and coming 
with the clouds of heaven." The phrase, u from this 
moment," shows that there is nothing personal in his 
coming, but that he means the coming of his kingdom, 
and the establishment of his spiritual power. Sitting on 
the right hand of God, and coming with the clouds of 
heaven, means nothing more nor less than that his king- 
dom is to be established and sustained by God. That 
crucifixion, by which they intended to disgrace him, and 
ruin his cause, was the very means of his exaltation, in- 
asmuch as it prepared the way for his resurrection, 
which raised him to the highest point of human venera- 
tion. That Jesus used this language, concerning his 
kingdom, in a spiritual meaning, and with perfect intel- 
ligence, appears from his examination before Pilate. 
The Jews, who wished to compass his death by any 
means, had no scruple to represent him as making him- 
self a king in a temporal sense, and, of course, as guilty 
of treason against the Roman Emperor. " Then Pilate 
entered again into the judgment-hall, and called Jesus, 
and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews ? Je- 
sus answered him ; Sayest thou this of thyself, or did 
others tell thee it of me ? Pilate answered, Am I a 
Jew ? Thine own nation, and the chief priests, have 
delivered thee unto me ; what hast thou done ? Jesus 
answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my 



298 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

kingdom were of this world, then would my servants 
fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews ; but 
now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate then said to 
him ; Art thou a king, then ? Jesus answered ; Thou 
sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and 
for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear 
witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, 
heareth my voice." His only power is the power of 
his doctrines upon the human mind. Every man who 
owns allegiance to truth, is naturally and necessarily his 
subject. 

But the Messianic language, current at the time of 
Christ, had a more pervading and universal influence 
upon the forms of speech, and the modes of representa- 
tion in the New Testament, than would be at first sug- 
gested. Jesus often used the figure of u the kingdom 
of heaven," applied to his religion. In correspondence 
with the general idea, he speaks of himself as a king, 
not only on particular occasions, but he has conformed 
to this idea his representation of his whole relation to 
the church. Much of this language is not immediately 
intelligible to us, because forms of government, and 
even monarchies, are very different at this period of the 
world, and in these Western parts of the earth, from 
what they were in the East, and in the early ages. 
Government was not then distributed into the legislative, 
the judicial, and executive departments, and allotted 
to different individuals, as it now is. The king w T as 
everything. He made the law, he sat in judgment on 
the transgressors, and he punished the guilty. To rule 
and to judge were nearly synonymous. ■ The monarch 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 299 

travelled from place to place, as our judges do at the 
present day, but with his court, with great pomp and 
splendor. Wherever he came, he punished the guilty, 
and rewarded the innocent. In the time of Christ, the 
king, or the governor of Judea, sat as judge. Thus 
Pilate sat to judge Christ, and Herod Agrippa, the 
king of Judea, sat to judge Paul, and Paul appealed to 
the personal tribunal of Caesar at Rome. Jesus, when 
here on earth, as the head of the new dispensation, as 
king of the kingdom of God, executed that part of the 
functions of a king which consisted in promulgating 
laws. It was necessary, in order to complete the idea 
of a king, that he should likewise represent himself as 
the Judge and Rewarder of mankind. He, like the 
kings and judges of the Oriental world, must represent 
himself as coining to judgment. This is the explana- 
tion of that scenic description in the twenty-fifth chapter 
of Matthew : " When the Son of man shall come in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he 
sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall 
be gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them one 
from another, as the shepherd divideth the sheep from 
the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, 
and the goats on the left. Then shall the King say 
unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my 
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world." This is the completion of his 
reign as the Messiah. He has promulgated his laws, he 
has tried his subjects, whether they have lived agreea- 
bly to them, and pronounces sentence upon them accord- 
ingly, and then resigns his kingdom to God. That this 



300 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

is a scenic, and not a personal transaction, he more -than 
hints to us in another place. " He that rejecteth me, 
and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him ; 
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him 
at the last day." Those who are acquainted with the 
principles of the Gospel, shall be judged according to 
them. 

Jesus, when here on earth, appeared to his disciples 
to be in closer communion with God, than had ever 
been vouchsafed to any other person. His wisdom was 
unerring, his character spotless, and he was endowed by 
God with extensive control over nature. Finally, he 
was raised from the dead, a distinction which alone 
lifted him above anything that humanity had ever at- 
tained before. After his resurrection, he did not de- 
part into the obscure and unknown of the invisible 
world, but gave his disciples proofs of his continued ex- 
istence, and a high state of favor with God, that he 
cared for his church, and had power to watch over it. 
Hence the language which is applied to him by the 
Apostles. His Messianic dignity appears in almost 
every page of the New Testament. During their lives, 
the Apostles considered him to be the heavenly patron 
of their great undertaking of evangelizing the world, to 
have obtained for them from God those miraculous 
powers, by which their mission was authenticated, and 
their authority established in the church. The position 
they considered him to occupy after his ascension, is 
exhibited in their prayer to God, after the miracle per- 
formed upon the impotent man by Peter and John, in 
the presence of the multitude at the temple. " Lord, 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



301 



thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and 
the sea, and all that in them is, Who by the mouth of thy 
servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, 
and the people imagine vain things ? The kings of the 
earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together 
against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a 
truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast 
anointed, both Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and 
the people of Israel were gathered together, to do 
whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined before 
to be done. And now 7 , Lord, behold their threatenings, 
and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they 
may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy hand to 
heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the 
name of thy holy servant Jesus." Such a prayer as 
this is sufficient surely to determine the relation in 
which Jesus stood to the Supreme God, after his resur- 
rection, They do not worship Christ, but God only. 
They do not consider him as working the miracles by 
which their own ministry was accompanied, but it is 
God who stretches forth his hand to heal, in furtherance 
of the cause of Jesus. He is not even called the child 
of God, as it is rendered in our translation, but the ser- 
vant of God. And this, by the way, is one of the 
strongest cases in which our translators were biassed 
by their Trinitarian opinions. The very same word, 
which, two verses before, they render servant, when ap- 
plied to David, two verses after, they render child, in 
order to avoid the unfavorable impression which the true 
rendering, servant, would make in regard to the doctrine 
of the Trinity Such was the state of opinion, with re- 
26 



302 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

spect to Jesus the Messiah, during the age of the Apos- 
tles. Such was the language they used concerning him 
in his state of exaltation. Hence his intimate associa- 
tion with God in all things that pertained to the Church. 
Hence they baptized in his name, into a profession of 
belief in his official character, as confirmed by miracles, 
or the Holy Ghost. 

I have reserved but a small space for that part of my 
present lecture which was to explain the manner in 
which the doctrine of the Trinity was introduced into 
the world. We have seen that it was not contained in 
the Bible, and yet it was drawn from the Bible by the 
Christian Church, in the course of ages, although the 
Catholic Church of the present day does not pretend 
to found it on the Bible, but confesses that it rests on 
the authority of tradition. 

The first cause that led to it, was the fact that Chris- 
tianity gradually passed out of the hands of the Jews, or 
of converts from Judaism, into the hands of the Gen- 
tiles, that is, converted Pagans. The Jews always 
maintained, and have done so in all ages, to the present 
hour, the strictest ideas of the divine Unity ; and the 
Trinity is, at the present moment, the greatest difficulty 
in the way of converting the Jews. They understood 
the Messianic and Oriental epithets, derived from the 
Jewish Theocracy, which were applied to their Mes- 
siah, and interpreted them as they ought to be inter- 
preted, of his official character, and not of his metaphys- 
ical nature. They had read in their Psalms such language 
as this, applied to David, whom they knew to be noth- 
ing more than a temporal king: u Then thou spakest 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



303 



in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help 
on one that is mighty ; 1 have exalted one chosen out 
of the people. I have found David my servant ; with 
my holy oil have I anointed him. with whom my hand 
shall be established ; mine arm also shall strengthen 
him. I will set his hand in the sea, and his right hand 
in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Fa- 
ther, my God, and the Rock of my salvation." "Also 
I will make him my first-bom , higher than the kings of 
the earth." Here David is called God's first-born, 
and he is represented as calling God his Father. Here 
too, then, by implication, all kings, on account of their 
dignity, are called sons of God. Much more should 
the Messiah be so called, on account of his expected 
elevation above all. No doctrine of a Trinity, then, 
could possibly have grown up among the converts to 
Christianity from Judaism. But soon the great body 
of the church was Pagan in its origin, who had been 
educated in Pagan ideas of God, and who had been ac- 
customed to consider Jupiter, their supreme god, as a 
derived being, the son of Saturn. There was, then, 
in their hereditary conceptions of Deity nothing of that 
pure spirituality, and none of that unique and unrivalled 
supremacy, with which the Jews regarded their Jeho- 
vah, whose very name, in reading their Scriptures, they 
did not dare to pronounce. They began therefore to 
interpret the epithet, " Son of God," of the nature, in- 
stead of the office of Jesus. If he was the Son of God, 
then by nature he must have the same attributes with 
his Father, and of course be God, and by the most un- 
accountable process that the human mind has ever ex- 



304 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

hibited, u Son of God " became converted into u God 
the Son," in contradistinction to God the Father. 

Another circumstance, which contributed to the dei- 
fication of Christ, was, that the prophetic power which 
rested upon him is called by John u the Word." Word, 
in Greek, signifies both reason and speech, and by the 
strangest fancy, they conceived, as Christ was the Son 
of God, and was therefore a derived being, that he was 
God's reason before he was generated, and he was God's 
speech afterward ; and that he began to exist in person- 
al form when God said, u Let there be light, and there 
was light." The Greek philosophy, which then predom- 
inated all over the civilized world, had no little influence 
in forming the doctrine of the Trinity. Plato, who was 
the highest authority in philosophical speculation at 
that period, had broached some speculations as to the 
divine nature, which approached, in some measure, the 
early theory of the Trinity. 

Another circumstance, which made the early Chris- 
tians more readily fall into these heathen speculations 
concerning the nature of Christ, was their desire to 
counteract the opprobrium of following a crucified 
Master. " The cross of Christ was to the Jews a 
stumbling-block, and to the Greeks, foolishness." The 
Christians were not unwilling to favor a hypothesis 
which seemed to countervail the humble origin of their 
religion, and throw a glory over their head, by ascribing 
to him the highest metaphysical rank in the universe. 

Another circumstance, which favored the formation 
and growth of the Trinity, was the peculiar form of 
baptism. This to a Jew w 7 as perfectly plain and intel- 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 305 

ligible, and not liable to mislead them in the least. 
Baptism was a form of public profession first adopted 
by the Jews in receiving proselytes from other relig- 
ions. The proselyte was washed, in token of adopting 
a purer faith, and commencing a purer life. Baptism 
was gradually used in various senses. By John the 
Baptist, the Jews were " baptized into repentance ;" 
that is, into a profession of repentance. People were 
said to be baptized into things as well as persons. Paul 
tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ's death ; 
that is, into a profession of a renunciation of the world. 
No Jew, therefore, would ever have considered the Holy 
Ghost, God, or even a person, because they were bap- 
tized into the name of the Holy Ghost. Nor would he 
have supposed that the Christ was God, because they 
were baptized into his name, because the Apostle de- 
clares that the Israelites " were baptized into Moses in 
the cloud and in the sea." There was no scrupulous 
adherence to the form which is given in the last chap- 
ter of Matthew. In baptizing converts from Judaism, 
the Apostles baptized them only into the name of Christ ; 
they already acknowledged God and the Holy Spirit. 
It was proper, however, for the heathen to be baptized 
into the name of God, as well as of Christ, for they 
were converts to the belief that he was the only true 
God, as well to the belief that Jesus was sent by him 
to teach and save the world. But they might have ac- 
knowledged this without receiving Christ in his true 
character of the miraculously authenticated Messenger 
of God. It was therefore necessary to add the third 
article, the Holy Spirit, the seal of Christ's mission, for 
26* 



306 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

the salvation of the world. Jews would never have 
built the superstructure of the Trinity on such a founda- 
tion. But those who had been accustomed to Pagan 
ideas, misinterpreted the form of baptism entirely, and 
imagined that these three articles of faith were three 
persons of a Trinity, and that these three persons were 
one God. 

The work, however, of the deification of Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, was a slow process ; and that of the 
Holy Spirit is still but imperfectly accomplished ; for the 
mass of Trinitarians, even now, when questioned upon 
the subject, are found to have very indistinct impres- 
sions of its personality even, and many deny it alto- 
gether, and still claim to be Trinitarians. 

It was not until the year three hundred and twenty- 
five, that any portion of the church could agree to as- 
cribe Deity to Christ, and then in a sense, which, to a 
modern Trinitarian, nullifies such ascription entirely ; 
for the creed which was established at the Council of 
Nice expressly asserts that he is derived and subordi- 
nate. Nothing was established concerning the Holy 
Ghost, until the Council of Constantinople, in the year 
three hundred and eighty-one. 

The history of the doctrine of the Trinity, may be seen 
by any one, at a glance, by placing under the form of 
baptism, which may be in some sense considered as the 
creed of the Apostolic church, the Apostles' Creed, as 
it is called, which was an enlargement of the form of bap- 
tism, and gradually took its place in the first two centu- 
ries ; under that, the Nicene Creed, of the year three 
hundred and twenty-five ; under that, the Creed of Con- 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



307 



stantinople, of the year three hundred and eighty-one ; 
and under that, the Athanasian Creed, composed some 
time, no one knows when, or by whom, in the dark ages. 

The form of Baptism you all very well know. The 
Apostles' Creed begins the work of enlargement by de- 
fining the sense of the term " Son," to be, that he was 
conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin 
Mary. " I believe in God, the Father Almighty," one 
God, all the ancient copies have it, " Maker of heaven 
and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord, 
who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Vir- 
gin Mary," &c. 

What is very remarkable in this creed, is, that there 
is no allusion in it to Christ's preexistence. All that is 
said of the Holy Ghost is, " I believe in the Holy 
Ghost," leaving every one to define for himself in what 
sense. In the Nicene Creed, you perceive a very differ- 
ent definition put upon the sonship of Christ. " I believe 
in one God, &c, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the 
only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before 
all ivorkls, God out of God, Light oat of Light, very 
God out of very God, begotten, not made, of one sub- 
stance with the Father." Here you see, the origin of 
the Son of God, instead of being dated, as it is in the 
Apostles' Creed, at his birth of the Virgin Mary, is car- 
ried back before all worlds, and represented as being 
from the substance of the Father, proceeding as light 
does from the sun, very God, because derived from 
very God. The Holy Ghost is left, in this creed, where 
it was in the Apostles' Creed : iC I believe in the Holy 
Ghost." But in the Creed of Constantinople, the same 



308 ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 

sort of addition is made to this article, that was made in 
the article concerning the Son, in the Creed of Nice. 
That Council added : u I believe in the Holy Ghost, 
the Lord and Giver of life , who proceedeth from the 
Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped 
and glorified, ivho spake by the prophets." Thus, you 
perceive, that it took three centuries and a half for three 
articles of a Creed to be transformed into three Persons 
of a Trinity. 

In the middle of the dark ages, the Trinitarian hypo- 
thesis received a still further development in the Atha- 
nasian Creed, which goes on to define, with the utmost 
precision, the relations of the three persons to each-oth- 
er, but still did not claim an equality for the three, (the 
Son and Holy Ghost are derived,) at least not such an 
equality as would satisfy a theologian of the present age 
of the world. 4C The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
are each uncreate, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty, 
God and Lord, yet there are not three Lords, Gods 
almighty, eternal, incomprehensible, uncreated, but 
one." But the most remarkable thing about this creed 
is the material distinction which I am now about to re- 
cite. " The Father is neither made, created, nor be- 
gotten. The Son of the Father alone, not made, nor 
created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the 
Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor be- 
gotten, but proceeding." But as a salvo to this, it adds : 
u In this Trinity, none is afore and none is after anoth- 
er, none is greater nor less than another." After the 
Reformation, this distinction of derivation was over- 
looked, and the steps by which the second and third 



ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 



309 



Persons were defined, were forgotten, the scaffolding 
was removed, and we have the Trinity, without any re- 
servation of begotten or proceeding. " There are three 
Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost ; these three are one God, the same in sub- 
stance, equal in power and glory." 

I have thus traced the doctrine of the Trinity, from its 
germ in the prophetic and Oriental language of the Old 
Testament, to its full development in modern times; and 
I must confess, upon a review of it, that it is one of the 
most w r onderful chapters in the history of the human 
mind. We see certain theocratic phrases, and the am- 
biguity of a Greek word, gradually prevail over the pure 
Monotheism of Moses and the Old Testament, and 
carry the world back into practical Polytheism, the 
introduction of more than one object of worship. 

Such is the truth with regard to the doctrine of the 
Trinity, as any one who takes the trouble to investigate, 
may satisfy himself. How long it will take the Christian 
world to retrace its steps, and return to the faith of 
Christ and his Apostles, it is in vain for us to conjec- 
ture. Nor is it a question in which we are at all con- 
cerned. Our duty is the same in any case. Our alle- 
giance is to the simple truth. That, it is our duty to 
profess, and maintain, and propagate, as much when we 
maintain it almost alone, as when we are sustained by 
the concurring suffrage of the world. 



LECTURE XIV. 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 
EPHESIANS, IV. 4, 5 3 6, and 11, 12. 

THERE IS ONE BODY, AND ONE SPIRIT, EVEN AS YE ARE CALLED IN ONE 
HOPE OF YOUR CALLING ; ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD 
AND FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS ABOVE ALL, AND THROUGH ALL, AND IN 
YOU ALL. AND HE GAVE SOME APOSTLES, AND SOME PROPHETS, AND 
SOME EVANGELISTS, AND SOME PASTORS AND TEACHERS, FOR THE PER- 
FECTING OF THE SAINTS, FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY, FOR THE 
EDIFYING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST. 

I intend to speak to you, from these words, of the 
nature and constitution of the Christian church. To 
my mind these two quotations seem to cover the whole 
ground of our subject, and to meet and answer the 
various questions which have been raised among the 
different denominations of Christians as to the original 
organization of the church, and the external form which 
it ought to take in different ages and under different 
circumstances. 

It must have struck every one, I think, as I read 
these texts, that while there is a unity of the whole 
church, there is diversity of administration in different 
parts of it. While all belong to one body, and a com- 
mon spirit animates the whole, while all have one faith. 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 311 

one baptism, while all acknowledge one God and Father 
of all, and one Master, Jesus Christ, different portions 
of the church had different officers of instruction : 
M And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and 
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." 
The common object of all was the edification of the 
church. u For the perfecting of the saints, for the 
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
Christ.'' The whole church was one in some respects, 
but then there were different churches having different 
kinds and orders of teachers. Now, to my mind, these 
texts cover the whole ground of the modern contro- 
versy as to church organization and government. To 
my mind, they seem to establish the following points, 
that the true church of Christ, in the sight of God, con- 
sists of all those of every name, and nation, and age, and 
kindred, and people, of all communions and sects, who 
by Christ and his religion have been made like him and 
prepared for heaven. They are one body, because 
they are animated with one spirit. One soul breathes 
through them all, the spirit of piety and benevolence. 
This is the church in which I pray God that my soul 
may be numbered at last. 

In the second place, the church, as far as man's 
consciousness is concerned, consists of all, who in their 
souls, believe in Christ ; that is, believe in him as Lord, 
and are, to use the technical language of theologians, 
united to him by faith. Lordship is simply authority. 
The allegiance of every human soul is due immediately 
to God. No being can have any authority over my 
conscience but God. But then he may delegate that 



312 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

authority to another, and that delegated authority I am 
bound to obey, if he sends me the proper credentials 
that it is his authority. 

Such credentials were the miracles and the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. The moment that a man reads the New 
Testament, and becomes convinced that Jesus was 
sent by God, and was commissioned to teach what he 
taught, then all that he said becomes obligatory on his 
conscience. Jesus becomes his Lord, because he has 
authority from God, and duly authenticated. He is a 
believer, and is connected with Christ by faith, even 
though his allegiance is involuntary ; and it makes no 
difference whether he makes an outward profession or 
not, he is a subject of Christ, his own conscience 
judges his actions by Christ's laws, and by Christ's 
w T ords at last he will be judged by God. If he keeps 
his allegiance, receives the spirit of Christ, and does 
his commandments, he will be finally accepted, for he 
belongs to the true body of Christ, because he is pene- 
trated by his spirit. 

In the third place, the visible church consists of those 
who profess faith in Christ and allegiance to him, by 
participation in the ordinances of religion ; and this is 
what is usually called the church. This corresponds 
neither with the church as it exists in the sight of God, 
nor in the convictions of men. There are those in it, 
whom God sees not to belong to the true church by 
practice, and there are those in it who do not belong to 
the church of Christ by faith, w 7 ho are conscious to 
themselves that they do not believe in Christ in any 
sense. 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 313 

Besides these different senses of the church universal, 
there is in the New Testament another meaning of the 
word church, a particular body of Christians united for 
their common edification by the ministry of the word 
and the celebration of the ordinances of the Christian 
religion. Paul w 7 rites to u the church which is in Co- 
rinth," to " the churches in Galatia," and the messages 
in the Apocalypse are addressed to u the seven churches 
which are in Asia." 

I shall now go on to state in what consisted the unity 
of the church universal in the days of the apostles. 
" There is one body and one spirit." Here is a figure 
evidently derived from the human constitution. The 
human body is one because it is animated by one soul. 
So is the church of Christ one, because it is pervaded 
by a common spirit, the spirit of Christ, the spirit of 
piety and benevolence. And this, after all, is the only 
basis of true communion. It is of no consequence to 
me that a man communes with me at the same table, if 
I have no spiritual communion with him, — if he have not 
integrity, piety, and benevolence. It is of no conse- 
quence to me that a man communes at a different table, 
if, on becoming acquainted with him, I find there is a 
moral sympathy between us. In this sense, there is 
a unity in the church at the present hour. All truly 
good men have a moral sympathy with each other all 
over the world, and are prepared to enjoy each other's 
society on earth and in heaven. Not only so, this one- 
ness of spirit makes the church one in all ages and all 
times. A true Christian now, is just what a true 
Christian was in the days of the apostles, because vir- 
27 



314 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

tue and piety are forever the same. Human nature is 
the same, and its trials are the same that they were 
two thousand years ago. The truly good, who have 
arrived at heaven, are all of one church. All specula- 
tive differences have been removed by the light of eter- 
nity. The differences of modes and forms, of course, 
have become of the things which have passed away. 
They were in their own nature only instrumental, and 
having accomplished their purpose, they are forgotten. 
Of what consequence is it to the immortal spirit in 
heaven, whether the mortal body it has left behind was 
baptized with much water or little, provided the soul 
was baptized into the spirit of Christ ? Of what con- 
sequence will it be to inquire, whether that body re- 
ceived the communion standing or sitting, reclining or 
kneeling, provided the soul obtained its spiritual life 
and strength from the words of Christ, of which the 
elements of communion are merely symbolical ? Of 
what consequence will be the name by which the per- 
son was called, who ministered the word, which en- 
lightened and sanctified and saved the soul, whether 
bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or even if he had no 
distinctive name at all, and were one of the brethren 
peculiarly gifted ? 

The second ground of unity of the church, which is 
mentioned by the iVpostle is, that all Christians have 
" one Lord." What is lordship? It is simply au- 
thority. In the case of Christ, it is authority to teach, 
and authority to command, authority to bind the faith 
and the conscience. He treats Christ as his Lord, 
who believes what he has said, and does what he has 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 315 

commanded. That this is the sense in which Christ 
claimed to be Lord of his followers, appears from his 
own w r ords : u Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do 
not the things that I say ? " "Not every one that 
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- 
dom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven." 

Lordship may be original, and it may be derived. 
In the case of Christ, it was derived. For Peter de- 
clares : " Therefore, let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom 
ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." All the 
churches, then, which were planted by the apostles in 
various parts of the world, were united in this, that 
they deferred to the authority of Christ. What he had 
taught, they believed to be true ; what he had com- 
manded, they felt themselves under obligation to per- 
form, because God had made him both Lord and 
Christ. 

And so all Christian churches now, all over the 
world, have this common bond of unity, that they all 
acknowledge the lordship of Christ, they all defer to 
his authority. They confess their obligation to believe 
what he has said, and do what he has commanded. 
They differ as to the grounds of his lordship. Some 
make him Lord by original right, because he was God ; 
others agree with the Apostle, and consider him Lord, 
because God made him so. All receive his teachings 
as of Divine authority, and regard them with a rever- 
ence which they pay to nothing else. 

" One faith and one baptism " may be considered 



316 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

together, as they were intimately connected, one being 
the profession of the other. One baptism has here no 
reference to the uniformity of the mode of baptism, as 
some have supposed, nor does it refer, as others have 
imagined, to the fact that the ceremony was performed 
but once, but simply that the rite meant the same thing 
all the world over. 

And what did baptism mean all the world over ? It 
was an initiation into the Christian church. It was a 
public profession of the Christian faith. And what was 
the Christian faith ? We have its fundamental articles 
in the form of baptism itself. They were baptized into 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. But a part of this creed was held by the Jews 
before. They believed in the Father, in Jehovah, the 
only living and true God. They believed in the Holy 
Ghost ; they believed that God had miraculously made 
himself known. 

But in order to learn what a man professed, when he 
was admitted into the Christian church, it is only ne- 
cessary to go back to the first member that was received 
into it. And w T ho was he ? Plainly it was Peter. 
Jesus, after exhibiting to his disciples for some time his 
credentials, one day asked them whom they took him 
to be. Peter answered, according to Mark, u Thou 
art the Christ ;" according to Luke, " Thou art the 
Christ of God." Jesus immediately calls him the cor- 
ner stone of his church, or in other words its first mem- 
ber. The Jew then added to his belief in the one 
Jehovah, the belief in Jesus as the Messiah. When 
the Jews, after the ascension of Christ, were baptized 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 317 

into the Christian church, it was not necessary that the 
whole form should be used, but only the name of Jesus. 
Accordingly, it seems, as we pursue the history, that 
in baptizing Jews and Samaritans, they made use only 
of the name of Jesus. Thus, in the second chapter of 
Acts, Peter says to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost : 
" Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christy for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." When Philip 
the Evangelist went down to Samaria, and made con- 
verts of the Samaritans, it is said of them, that they 
u were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." 

But when heathens were to be baptized the case was 
different. They had known nothing of the Jehovah of 
the Jews. It was necessary, therefore, that they 
should profess belief in him, should be baptized into 
the name of the Father as well as the Son. It was 
necessary, too, that they should profess belief in the 
Holy Ghost, for this article alone established a peculiar 
relation between God and Jesus, which clothed him 
with divine authority. As was expressed by Peter on 
another occasion, in his speech to Cornelius and his 
companions : " How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth 
with the Holy Ghost and with power." Now, if a man 
did not believe that^God anointed Jesus of Nazareth 
with the Holy Ghost and with power, he could not be 
baptized, for he could not assent to the third article of 
the creed. 

So, although the form of baptism was different under 
different circumstances, the substance was the same 
under all circumstances. It might be broken up into 
27* 



318 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 



three propositions. Do you believe in the one God, 
the Jehovah of the Jews ? Do you believe that 
Jesus was the Messiah, who was promised to the 
world ? Do you believe that his mission was miracu- 
lous, that God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and 
with power, and in the other miraculous attestations of 
Christianity ? If so, then you can assent to the Christ- 
ian faith and be baptized. 

This view of things is confirmed by the next article 
of unity : " One God and Father of all, who is above 
all, and through all, and in you all." Father, here, 
you perceive, is used as synonymous w r ith God, as 
it is always in the New Testament. He is the Jeho- 
vah of the Jews, but not a national God. He is the 
God and Father of all, both Jews and Gentiles. He 
is above all. He has no one to share his Deity. 
He pervades all, and dwells in the hearts of all good 
men. 

Here, then, we have complete the articles of unity in 
the Christian church. They had one God, the Jeho- 
vah of the Jews, and the Father of all mankind ; one 
Lord and Master, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of 
the Jews. They professed the same faith in the forms 
of baptism, though they were different under different 
circumstances. They were pervaded by the same spi- 
rit, one soul animated them all, they were united by a 
moral sympathy, which more than anything else made 
them one body. 

We now turn to the subject of the second quotation 
in our text, the outward organization of the different 
branches or portions of the church, and we ask, if there 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 319 

was here the same uniformity ? Had each particular 
church the same officers for its growth, instruction, 
and edification ? Our text plainly tells us, No. These 
were different, under different circumstances. Christ, 
when he ascended on high, the Apostle says, u gave 
some apostles, and some prophets, and some evange- 
lists, and some pastors and teachers." In another 
place, the functionaries of the primitive church are enu- 
merated in a manner entirely different. "God hath 
set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily, pro- 
phets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles; then gifts of 
healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 
Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers, are 
all workers of miracles, have all the gifts of healing, do 
all speak with tongues, do all interpret ? " In a third 
place, we have still another enumeration of the officers 
of the early church. cc Having then gifts differing ac- 
cording to the grace given unto us, whether prophecy, 
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or 
ministry, let us wait on our ministry; or he that teacheth, 
on teaching ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he 
that giveth } let him do it with simplicity ; he that ruleth, 
with diligence ; he that showeth mercy, with cheerful- 
ness." The official men of the apostolic churches are 
enumerated in a fourth place in a manner and order 
still different, in a manner which intimates that the 
offices did not depend on ordination, or on conventional 
rank, but on personal endowment. u But the mani- 
festation of the spirit is given to every man to profit 
withal. For to one is given by the spirit, the word of 
wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the 



320 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

same spirit ; to another faith, by the same spirit ; to 
another the gifts of healing, by the same spirit ; to an- 
other the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; 
to another discerning of spirits ; to another divers kinds 
of tongues ; to another the interpretation of tongues." 
Can any one from such passages as these, determine 
what the primitive organization of the church was ? Is 
there any modern church in which these different offices 
and orders have their representatives ? There is, and 
there can be no apostolic succession, in the true sense 
of the word. No uninspired man, by the comparison 
of the different passages, can now define what these 
different offices were, and how they were distinguished 
from each other. There is a church, which claims to 
be exclusively apostolic, because it is organized with 
bishops, priests, and deacons. But you search the 
above catalogues in vain to find the names even of either 
of these church dignitaries. There is no church on 
earth, which corresponds precisely in its organization 
with the churches founded by the apostles. 

Christ, the Scripture says, u gave some apostles, 
and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some 
pastors and teachers for the ivork of the ministry." 
Could this organization be perpetual ? Certainly not. 
Neither an apostle nor a prophet, who founded a church, 
could have for a successor an apostle or a prophet. 
As soon as miraculous powers ceased, they were, of 
course, succeeded by some other species of teacher 
under some other name. The church in the next age 
after the apostles, w 7 as instructed and governed in a 
different manner from what it was during their lives. 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 321 

It is plain, then, that the outward organization of the 
Christian community was left to circumstances, that is, 
it was to adapt itself to the various conditions in which 
it should be placed. Christ's religion was a spirit and 
not a form, and therefore capable of such adaptation. 
It was to spread over the earth, and establish itself 
among every nation and kindred and tongue and people. 
It was to survive innumerable changes in the forms of 
society. It would have been a clog to its advancement, 
if it had been tied down to one set form and one un- 
changeable organization. 

Christianity and Judaism were essentially different in 
their fundamental principles. Judaism had a ritual, the 
forms of which were prescribed to the minutest partic- 
ular. Not only were certain things ordered to be done, 
but it was set down by positive statute, how they were 
to be done. The two ordinances of Christianity are 
commanded to be celebrated ; but as to the manner, 
there is a prcfound silence. In Judaism, the priest 
hood was appointed to a single family, and to be trans- 
mitted from father to son, by lineal descent. In Christ- 
ianity there could be no priesthood, because all sacri- 
fices were done away by Christ's sacrifice of himself. 
Not only was there no succession of apostles appointed, 
but it was impossible that they should have any succes- 
sors. Their relation to the church was peculiar, and 
could not be transmitted. There could no more be a 
succession of apostles than there could be a succession 
of New Testaments. The very phrase apostolic suc- 
cession, carries in itself a fallacy. It suggests ideas 
which do not correspond to facts. 



322 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 



The Christian church was not modelled upon the 
Jewish hierarchy. It did not spring up in the temple. 
It had its origin in the synagogue, where a totally dif- 
ferent order of things existed. Christ himself began to 
teach in the synagogue. In the synagogue the apostles 
commenced their ministry in the various cities of the 
Roman Empire. The organization of the synagogue 
is well exhibited, as far as our subject is concerned, 
by a glimpse we have into one of them in the Acts. 
" And when they departed from Perga, they came to 
Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the 
Sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of 
the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue 
sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye 
have any word of exhortation to the people, say on." 
After the church seceded from the synagogue, the eld- 
ers of the church, likewise called overseers, or bishops, 
were the successors not of the apostles, but of the 
rulers of the synagogue. The rulers of the synagogue 
were men of mature age, of respectability and gravity 
of character, and of influence in society, who had the 
oversight and management of its affairs. Hence it is, 
that in the first churches of which we read in the New 
Testament, there were many bishops to one church, 
instead of being, as in modern times, one bishop to 
many churches. ct Paul and Timotheus, the servants 
of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which 
are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." 

The office of teaching was not confined to the rulers 
of the synagogue. They might call on any one they 
supposed qualified by learning or wisdom or experience, 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 323 

to explain the Scriptures, and teach and exhort the 
people. And so, in the case above stated, the rulers of 
the synagogue called upon Paul and Barnabas, though 
perfect strangers. And so it was, among other things, 
that the Christian church, when it seceded from the 
synagogue, took with it the custom of permitting every 
one to speak and to teach, who by wisdom, or piety, 
or learning, was qualified to edify the brethren. All 
were permitted to speak except the women. And 
hence it is, that teaching did not create a distinct order. 
As far as teaching was concerned, the whole church 
were the successors of the apostles. 

We next come to the power of ordination. This 
was necessarily a part of the power of organizing 
churches. Every missionary of the new religion went 
abroad prepared, not only to make converts, but so to 
establish them, as that they might perpetuate their own 
existence. This involved the power of ordination. If 
they could admit into the church by baptism, much 
more should they have the power of ordination, by 
which the whole number of the baptized might continue 
to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel after the departure 
of the missionary. We accordingly read that the power 
of planting and organizing churches, was not confined 
to the apostles. It was likewise exercised by other 
teachers, for we read in the Acts : " And at that time 
there was a great persecution against the church, which 
was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad 
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except 
the apostles." " Now they which were scattered 
abroad upon the persecution which arose about Ste- 



324 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

phen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and 
Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the 
Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus 
and Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch, 
spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 
And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great 
number believed, and turned unto the Lord ; " that is, 
made a profession of their faith. This could be done 
only by forming churches and participating in the ordi- 
nances. Here, then, at Antioch, was the Gospel 
preached, converts made, and a church formed, without 
the presence of any of the apostles, by other Christians, 
who were on their way to Cyprus and Cyrene from 
Jerusalem, where they themselves had been converted. 
Whence could the elders or bishops of this church have 
derived their apostolic succession ? They certainly 
could have had none. Thus we have the facts to in- 
terpret the language of the New Testament. To some 
churches, " Christ gave apostles, to some prophets, to 
some pastors and teachers," for the work of the minis- 
try, and all were equally competent to its duties. To 
plant churches, involved the power of ordination, or, 
in other words, of organizing the churches they had 
planted. 

The only official function of the apostles which re- 
mains, is the administration of the ordinances. And 
here we are in utter ignorance, as to one of them, how 
it was done. We do not know how the supper was 
administered, or by whom. We have no record of its 
having been administered by the apostles. Paul says 
expressly, that he did not usually baptize even his own 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 325 

converts, for he says, "Christ sent me not to baptize 
but to preach the Gospel." It was considered a sub- 
ordinate office. Peter did not baptize Cornelius and 
his companions, but u commanded them to be bap- 
tized." 

Here, then, are enumerated all the functions of the 
apostles, except the intransmissible power of conferring 
the Holy Ghost, — teaching, ordination, and the admin- 
istration of the ordinances, — and not one of them was 
exclusively appropriated by the apostles, but all pos- 
sessed in common with other teachers. If they pos- 
sessed no monopoly, no order could possibly succeed 
to their exclusive rights. The pretensions, then, of 
bishops to do anything in the church, which other min- 
isters cannot do, are totally groundless. 

That elders and bishops were the same, is clearly 
proved from the twentieth chapter of Acts. When 
Paul was on his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, 
we read, that he stopped at Miletus, and sent to Ephe- 
sus for the elders of the church. When they were 
come to Miletus, he made them a long speech concern- 
ing their duties and responsibilities. Among other 
things, he said to them, tc Take heed to yourselves, 
and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you bishops." And here, let me observe, is a 
most remarkable instance of disingenuousness on the 
part of the Episcopal translators of our Bible. They 
did not render the word episcopus, bishop, here, as 
they have done in other cases, for two obvious reasons. 
One was, that it would show that bishops and elders 
were the same. For Paul sent to Ephesus for the 
28 



326 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

elders of the church, and when they were come, he 
addressed them as bishops, proving that bishops and 
elders were the same, which is ruinous to the claims of 
exclusive Episcopacy. The other reason was, that 
this text shows, that there were more bishops than one 
in the church of Ephesus. The admission that there 
were more bishops than one in a single church, or even 
a single city, is as fatal to the cause of exclusive Epis- 
copacy, as the admission that bishop and elder, or 
presbyter, were originally the same. 

And yet, we are told, that " there cannot be a church 
without a bishop." If the above representation is true, 
the primitive churches had not one, but several. If it 
be meant by this, that there cannot be a church with- 
out an officer precisely corresponding with the ancient 
elder or bishop, then there is no church on earth. 
The circumstances of the church have changed, and 
the organization of the church has changed with them. 
This being the case, the question whether there can be 
a church without a bishop, is a dispute about " words 
and names " of no sort of importance. We are told, 
too, that the ministrations of all church officers are 
invalid, except of those who have been ordained by a 
person called a bishop, which name has been transmit- 
ted in direct line from the apostles ; whereas we have 
shown, that churches were formed and organized by 
ordination, where no apostle had evtr been* 

We are told, moreover, that there is an intrinsic 
efficacy in the ordinances, that certain persons, called 
by certain names, have the power to communicate a 
peculiar, spiritual virtue to the elements of communion, 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 327 

whereas we do not find that the apostles themselves 
claimed any such faculty, or even with their own hands 
administered the communion at all. And as to baptism, 
for which so much is now claimed, it does not seem 
that any office in the church was necessary to its ad- 
ministration. The apostles appear to have delegated 
it to inferior hands. 

I have said, that the organization of the primitive 
churches, appears to have been the result of circum- 
stances. Most particularly so was it with a class of 
officers, of which 1 am now about to speak, the dea- 
cons. 

Soon after the formation of the church at Jerusalem, 
a charity sprung up in it, which the apostles had not 
time to manage, without neglecting what was of much 
greater importance, the preaching of the word. They 
therefore requested that others might be appointed to 
this trust. " It is not meet," said they, " that we 
should leave the word of God and serve tables. Where- 
fore, brethren, look ye out among you, seven men, of 
good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, 
whom we may set over this business." Seven men 
were accordingly chosen, and ordained to this office. 
Is it not plain, that this office was created for the occa- 
sion ? Is it not plain, that the charity gave birth to 
the office, and not any previous plan or foresight of 
Christ or his apostles ? The plan was adopted by 
other churches, because the custom was universal in 
the first ages, of providing for the poor. And yet we 
have an order, in some of our churches, who claim to 
be the lineal successors of these deacons, whose office 



328 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

has nothing to do with the poor, but who give them- 
selves entirely to the ministration of the word and ordi- 
nances, and do everything that any ministers claim to 
do, except confirm and ordain. 

In the apostolic times, we read of no hierarchy in 
the church, no subordination among the apostles. Paul 
claimed a full equality with the rest. " I am not a 
whit behind the very chiefest apostles," and he on one 
occasion publicly reproved Peter, who has since been 
considered to have had a primacy among them. If 
there was any one, to whom a special deference was 
paid, it was James, who seems to have presided over 
the church at Jerusalem. So far as we are informed, 
the churches were perfectly independent of each other, 
and acknowledged no head but Christ. Paul reproves 
the Corinthians for saying, u I am of Paul, and I of 
Apollos, and I of Cephas : Is Christ divided ? " 

It would have been a radical defect in the organiza- 
tion of the primitive churches, if they had not been per- 
fectly independent of each other. They could not 
have answered the purpose of churches, if they had 
not had individually all the powers and faculties of a 
church. There must have been, in the nature of 
things, some officer in every church, capable of dis- 
charging all the functions of a minister of Christ, or 
the power would have been defective of carrying out 
the very purposes of the existence of a church. With- 
out the power to ordain, no church could have had 
the means of perpetuating itself. Its very existence 
would have depended on the will of a person or per- 
sons foreign to it. If it be meant by the saying, " There 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 329 

can be no church without a bishop," that there can be 
no church without an officer, or officers, who have the 
authority to ordain, it is perfectly true, but it entirely 
destroys the relation of bishop to more than one 
church. 

With the right of ordination goes the right of admin- 
istering the sacraments. If the officers of any particu- 
lar church have not the power to perpetuate them- 
selves, then their church may be at any moment cut 
off from the possession of the Christian ordinances, 
and indeed all Christian privileges, and the door is 
opened to the greatest tyranny and oppression. And 
the church which gives up this power is instantly en- 
slaved. Accordingly, this was the point in which the 
liberties of the Christian world first began to be invaded, 
and the simple power of ordination was the engine by 
which a domination was established in Europe, at which 
nations bowed down, and monarchs trembled on their 
thrones. 

Another conspicuous feature of the early church, was 
its popular character. In fact, Christianity is the mother 
of all the free governments which now exist upon the 
earth. The apostles did not fill the place of Judas by 
their own election. The whole church chose two can- 
didates, and then they cast lots between them. The 
seven deacons, too, were chosen by popular vote. 

What then are the points, which we may consider 
established with regard to the primitive church ? That 
it was one with respect to its faith, one in respect to the 
God whom it worshipped, one in regard to the Master 
it obeyed, and one as respects its spirit and character. 
28* 



330 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

The outward form and organization of the church was 
the result of circumstances, not ordained by Christ, nor 
made a subject of perpetual enactment by the apostles. 
Its officers were the result of circumstances, and many 
of them could not be permanent, nor have any successors. 
Teaching was not appropriated by any class or order, 
but was exercised by all. There was no subordination 
among the apostles, and the churches were independent 
of each other ; and, moreover, the power was evidently 
with the people, and officers w T ere chosen by popular 
election. 

But no sooner were the apostles dead, than what did 
the world see take place in the Christian church ? From 
these humble beginnings, a most magnificent edifice was 
constructed. One elder of a church, from the mere 
necessity of having a presiding officer, began to assume 
superiority over the others, and to appropriate to himself 
the name of bishop, which was at first common to them 
all. Parent churches assumed superiority over their 
colonies and dependencies, and one of the elders of a 
church soon found himself the bishop of a city, then of 
a province, then of all Christendom. And the same 
causes which made the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, 
and Constantinople, the Metropolitan churches of their 
respective provinces, made the church of Rome the 
mistress of the world. Then came the ages of darkness 
and superstition, when the Roman Empire fell in ruins, 
and the Pope, in fact, stepped into the vacant throne of 
the Csesars, and the successor of the humble fishermen 
of Galilee summoned the kings of the earth to do him 
homage, drew to Rome the riches of the nations, and 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 331 

assumed the prerogative of God himself, of opening or 
shutting the gates of heaven upon mankind. 

But the bishops, in order to confirm and perpetuate 
their own supremacy, were compelled to claim to do some- 
thing ivhich no one else could do. They assumed the 
right of making each other forever, and they invented a 
new rite, which neither Christ nor his apostles had in- 
stituted, that of confirmation, and which none but them- 
selves had the authority to administer. 

A new species of unity was introduced. All men 
must acknowledge, not only one God, and one Lord, 
but one bishop. In the meantime, by the conversion of 
the Emperor Constantine, the church became amalgama- 
ted with the civil power, and then force took the place 
of truth, and authority of conviction. But this new 
species of unity, enforced by external power, became in- 
stantly fatal to the true unity, that of the spirit. Unity 
of conviction never can be enforced, though a thousand 
Emperors conspire to decree it. The unity of faith be- 
came broken by the very attempts which were made to 
preserve it. There was in the church originally, but 
one faith, expressed in the form of baptism. But soon 
men began to speculate as to the meaning of its terms. 
Its second article, so intelligible to a Jew, " I believe in 
Jesus, as the Son of God, or the promised Messiah," 
the convert from Paganism began to interpret in a differ- 
ent sense. He changed the word Son, from an official 
to a literal signification. He said that Jesus was the 
Son of God, not because God sent him, but because he 
was begotten of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost. Another 
said that he was the Son of God, because he was be- 



332 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

gotten by the Father out of his own substance, before 
all worlds. At the conversion of Constantine, those 
who held this last opinion as to the metaphysical nature 
of Christ, happened to be in the majority in the church, 
at the command of the Roman Emperor they assembled 
and altered the original creed, by inserting into it their 
interpretation of its terms, and Constantine by his sword 
forced it upon the church universal. Those who refused 
to subscribe to it, were not only excommunicated from 
the church, but banished like criminals by the civil power, 
and the unity of the church from a unity of spirit, became 
a unity of oppression. This amalgamation of church 
and state, consummated by Constantine, in the fourth 
century, was perpetuated till the formation of the Ameri- 
can constitution. It was shaken by the Reformation, 
but not dissolved, in any nation of Europe. And strange 
as it may seem, the Nicene Creed, the first fruit of this 
unholy alliance, still continues to be recited in some of 
the churches of the United States, with as much so- 
lemnity, and apparently as of as much authority, as the 
Bible itself. 

And here, friends and fellow-citizens, in our glorious 
Republic, the church being severed from the civil power, 
the great and last experiment of Christianity is working 
itself out. The church is returning to the only unity 
that it ever can possess on earth, that of the spirit. De- 
prived of the external pressure which forced them upon 
mankind, church creeds and organizations are falling to 
pieces, and are found to be nothing but a rope of sand. 
Every church is becoming, as it was at the beginning, 
essentially independent. There is not a bishop nor ec- 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 



333 



clesiastical association, which dares lay a rude hand on 
any faithful minister of Christ, or sever the bond which 
unites minister and people. The more the experiment 
is tried, the more it will be shown, that every society of 
Christians possesses within itself, all the powers of a 
Christian church, and will always exercise them in a free 
country. 

An attempt has been made within a few years to re- 
vive the obsolete claims of bishops to a monopoly of 
power, and of the church universal to legislate for the 
churches particular. But I believe, that attempt has 
been looked upon by the American people with unmin- 
gled disgust. The spirit of that movement was mani- 
fested too soon. It spoke out on a late occasion in the 
metropolis of this country, in an unguarded moment of 
passion in a public assembly, from the lips of a dignitary 
of the American church, silencing in a moment the voice 
of complaint and remonstrance. Who did not hear in 
this, the echo of the thunders ot the Vatican ? Who did 
not recognize in it the tendency of all church organiza- 
tion, the language of every hierarchy, which has ever 
claimed dominion by divine right ? What American 
citizen and Christian did not feel himself oppressed and 
insulted, in the person of his fellow-citizen and Christian 
who was thus put down ? What American did not hear 
in those words, his own fate, if any one denomination 
were allowed to obtain political ascendency in this coun- 
try ? In this country, if anywhere, the unity of the 
church will be restored, — but how ? By reversing the 
process by which it has become divided. Division 
may perhaps, go on a while longer. But it must at 



334 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 



length run itself out. Beyond a certain point, religious 
institutions cannot be supported. When that point is 
reached, men must come together, in order to enjoy 
even the preaching of the Gospel. And how can this 
be done ? Only by each party dropping, or waiving, 
the peculiarities on which they have insisted, and sus- 
taining only the principles which they hold in common. 
They may not give up their partiality for certain forms, 
but they will cease to consider them as essential to salva- 
tion. The first step toward outward unity, will be the 
unity of the spirit, the spirit of their common Master. 
When this is attained, every thing else will be compara- 
tively easy. True Christians will not be kept apart by 
their preferences for different forms, and will consider 
them no longer a sufficient ground of separation. 

When this takes place, there will be one baptism. 
Not that there is more than one now, but all will come 
to see and acknowledge, that its meaning is essentially 
the same in all modes of administration. There will be 
one faith. Not that the private opinions of all Christians 
are ever to be the same, but the faith which they will 
require in others in order to their admission to the privi- 
leges of Christians, will be such as all can receive. In 
searching for a common creed, they will find their way 
back to the simple form of baptism, which was the prim- 
itive creed, a belief in God, in Christ, as the sent of 
God, and the miraculous origin of Christianity. To 
this creed all Christians of every name and denomination 
will assent. There will be one Lord. All Christians 
will own Jesus as their Master, w 7 hich is the meaning of 
Lord. There may be many still, who will believe Jesus 



BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 335 

to be God, as well as Lord, but they will be convinced 
that they must not force their opinions upon those who 
are willing to abide by the simple declarations of the 
Scriptures. They will have one God, the Father of 
all, the Father of Christ as well as of Christians. When 
these changes take place, the church will once more be 
one, in the only sense in which it ever can be one on 
earth. With the increase of knowledge and piety in the 
church universal, the questions which are now discussed 
between particular portions of it, will seem each year of 
less and less consequence. The question of the real 
presence in the eucharist, will be seen to be, as it is, a 
question of words and metaphysical distinctions, of no 
practical importance whatever. Their true place will 
be assigned to all mere forms and ceremonies, and that 
is among the instruments of edification , instead of being 
made, as they are now by some, essential to salvation. 
The ministry of the word, and the maintenance of a day 
set apart for that purpose, will be seen to be the princi- 
pal means of the salvation of the soul. What the man 
shall be called, who, after due preparation stands up as 
the Ambassador of Christ, to dispense that word, which 
is spirit and life, will be perceived to be of little impor- 
tance, whether bishop or priest, or deacon, or elder, or 
even if he should have no name at all. A more impor- 
tant inquiry will be, whether he be a man of piety, zeal, 
wisdom, talents, learning, patience, disinterestedness. 
Nor will those who are moved, instructed, and edified, 
by his preaching, be very anxious who ordained him, 
whether a bishop, who presumes without evidence, that 
he derives his authority in unbroken succession from the 



336 BAPTISM AND THE CHURCH. 

apostles, or from a presbytery, who, on their principles, 
are just as sure of apostolic succession. The true seal 
of his commission to them will be, an unction from on 
high, deep conviction, and an earnest solicitude to im- 
press his momentous message upon the souls of sinful, 
dying men. Then, the stumbling block of sectarianism 
being removed out of the way, when the different divis- 
ions of the church shall cease to exhaust their energies 
in contending with each other, the church shall move 
on in a solid body to convert the world, and the 
prayer of Christ shall be answered ; " That they all may 
be one, that the world may know that thou hast sent 
me." " And then shall come salvation, and strength, 
and the kingdom of our God, and of Eis Christ, and he 
shall reign forever." 



THE END. 



^ 
"£*. 

V 












• A V "^ - 






«*<?* .1 



..n« 









V^ 



fl /\ 



I 4 • «*>«** - < 






y\ 



«*°* .1 






'•«*• 












k ,,# \* .. -* •'" 




:- -ov* 



4^ ■ 



^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

ftP "^ * ^^^S^^S * ^ ' Neutra,izin 9 agent: Magnesium Oxide 

Wj^£§i» # * ^ ^** *+&6W&* W Treatment Date: July 2005 

> ' fi ^f o, ^> * v \* ,. PreservationTechnologies 

*,&£ a world leader in paper preservation 

aP <^ *trf!V^SvWl o *£* ij^ * JSffll 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

^*> * &0L-. Cranberry Township, PA 16068 









(724)779-2111 



tfJ^J 



